Necessary But Not Sufficient

Many who desire deep, radical change also advocate for incremental reforms as a path to achieving those longer term goals. They hope to avoid the binary opposition- reform or revolution -which has been such a historically persistent point of contention, and merge single-issue activism with calls for systemic re-structuring at the institutional level. Is there in fact a clear path around this antagonism? In his latest essay, Hope in the Looming Authoritarianism, social critic Henry Giroux enthuses over the “many active movements for resistance” who “engage spaces…such as schools, shelters, food banks and union halls”. His eloquent plea for resistance is not, in his own words, “a call to give up single-issue struggles but to expand their efforts.” In a piece titled Looking back on Occupy, author Ken Knabb reminds us that “countless people continue to carry out all sort of actions- picketing banks, disrupting corporate board meetings, blocking home foreclosures, protesting environmental policies (Monsanto, Tar Sands, fracking etc)…attempting to take over and re-open schools, libraries, vacant housing…” In a recent article, Michael Albert expressed anxiety that a polemical purism would prevent leftists from supporting Obama were he to seriously tackle climate change. These are just a few examples of a broad consensus found on the left that a “radical reformism” is both possible and necessary. I would contend that support for a “diversity of tactics” is in similar fashion a way to paper over the difference so as to proceed forward. What this consensus too often ignores, in my opinion, are the possible down-sides of settling on some “middle way”. What is the likelihood that piecemeal reforms, when successful, may dilute revolutionary fervor and simply re-set the cycle of exploitation and dispossession? And when such reform-activism proves unsuccessful, which is far more often the case, what are the chances that the results are defeatism, apathy and cynicism? Let’s begin with a close look at those “many active movements” Giroux speaks of, starting with the iconic “battle for Seattle”. For many social justice activists, this was a watershed moment in “movement” history, the forced suspension of talks over the Free Trade of the Americas treaty by a broad alliance of protestors using a “diversity of tactics” approach. This movement became known as Anti-Globalization and we can recall the disruptions in Genoa, Seoul, Miami and elsewhere trade ministers attempted summits. But if we stand back and look objectively, we see that globalization continued apace and that every multi-lateral trade deal that has been proposed, NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS, FTAA, Colombia TPA, has eventually been signed and ratified. The neoliberal agenda has succeeded despite the puppets and all those tens of thousands of protestors have moved on. What about the trajectory of the “peace movement”? We know 20 million people were mobilized to try to stop the invasion of Iraq. We know there were continuous protests, vigils and marches in cities around the country in opposition to the occupation. Can we honestly say any of that had any real effect? Consider the thousands who have gathered at Fort Benning Georgia for twenty years to protest the on-going School of the Americas. Their numbers have dwindled and the school changed its name. Then there are events such as Occupy, Wisconsin, Anti-Cuts in the UK, students in Quebec, Idle No More, the list of these spontaneous “uprisings” goes on and on. Yet they remain disparate, unlinked and temporary and the accumulation of capital, the growth of inequity, the enclosure of the commons and rate of ecocide only increases. While reveling in their autonomy, these protests burn bright but quickly fizzle. What gives? On a broader scale we can praise the achievements toward just, equitable and sustainable living arrangements by social democracies in much of the developed world. Advances in leisure time, democratic self-management and over-all quality of life have undoubtedly been achieved in the welfare state model. But an honest appraisal also shows that in each instance there has been a dramatic roll-back of those hard fought gains. These provisions fall prey all too easily to global economic crises and the ideological retrenchment which such crises arouse. Whether in narrow particular issue campaigns or these broader movements, the critique of capitalism is always the elephant in the room. Radical elements are asked to help stop evictions of foreclosed homes but not to talk openly about the ownership of productive property. Revolutionaries are invited to help get money out of politics but told not to talk about the capitalist state. Progressives insist that the ears of “the public” are too sensitive, that they will be repelled by such “ideological” rhetoric. Perhaps the World Social Forum best encapsulates this dynamic of slow strangulation in the name of inclusiveness and pluralism. Focusing on “social justice” has been a way to avoided the messy confrontation with the re-distributive meaning within the concept of economic justice. This is not then an argument against reform activities per se, but is a plea for an unflinching look at their limitations. Yes they are necessary to engage people as historical agents, but they are not sufficient in themselves to push history beyond the vicious cycle of populist/progressive reform followed by reaction and counter-reform. If at one point labor had the upper hand, it no longer does. Yes, participatory budgeting is a remarkable victory for democracy but it must be advanced into the sphere of production. Is it then my contention that a radical anti-capitalist critique is the only thing which separates short-term, gain-oriented reform from reform which leads to systemic overhaul? Yes. I believe it is exactly that ideological clarity and commitment to hegemonic (in the Gramscian sense) re-ordering which proves to be the difference in reform for reforms sake or reform as an organizing tool to bring about a world in which many worlds fit. This means we cannot simply avoid that difficult, antagonistic discussion and put it off (perpetually) to some “better” time. “Capitalism with a human face” is always a smokescreen for ignoring “externalities” such as those who suffer on the periphery, those generations yet to come and ecosystems which have no voice with which to protest.

Reputational Damage

This quote is from a study on divestment campaigns such as the one 350.org is running on US university campuses: "...direct financial impact of such campaigns on share prices or the ability to raise funds is small but the reputational damage can still have major financial consequences." Oxford Study on Divestment and Stranded Assets I would counter that with the proven ability of Transnational Energy Corporations to manage their reputations quite easily, thank you. It is one thing to divest from Apartheid regimes or Big Tobacco but Chevron? Those guys are good. And nobody Believes in "reputation" anymore anyway. They just want the shit. "The rate of increase in carbon emissions has tripled between the release of the first IPCC report and now." So the university could invest in solar powered sweat shops? What I don't want to hear is how this is CAUSED by "human nature". To make any claim about human subjectivization you need to be comfortable inside the tension of un-knowing, you need to bounce freely between the poles of nature/nurture or particular/universal or "technologies of the self"/ Oepidal-Mirror Phase. Can you do that? Not settle on one? It is that place of what Che Bob calls "unfinishedness" and Claude Lefort called the "dissolution of the markers of certainty". That is human nature, the good, the bad, and the ugly. By the way, the number one "shit they want/desire" is a smartphone. Who knew that you could increase workers hours, lower their wages, take away all their benefits and just give them a smartphone! Brilliant.Truly brilliant. No matter then that all the gains since the 2008 'crisis' have accrued to the top 5%, as long as people can scroll around on that magical screen, the illusion is complete. "At least I don't have to hunt people like in Hunger Games!" they sigh with relief. "Popular assent to laws and representatives is insufficient to fulfill democracy's promise of self-legislation. Instead, we would have to seek knowledge and control of the multiple forces that construct us as subjects, produce the norms through which we conceive reality and deliberate about the good...Power understood as making the world and not simply dominating it..."And yet the notion of democratically ruling all the powers constructing us is absurd: it approximates...grasping from without the psyches through which we experience and know the world. So democracy...must give up freedom as its prize. From this angle, democracy could never be achieved but is only an (unreachable)aim, a continuous political project; democratization commits its signatories to sharing in the powers that make ,order and govern them , but is perpetually unfinished." Wendy Brown

More Creative Destruction

So I'm walking down the "hip strip" in a little neighborhood in Portland the other day and I see an advertisement in the window of a salon for a new make-up called Urban Decay. The gal in the picture looks part Goth- part Zombie- like she has been doing meth for a week straight. I don't know why it should surprise me that our dystopian future should usher in new style opportunities, new marketing strategies, new ways to capitalize, after all, the accumulation imperative never rests. Speaking of restless Capital, I see where the Enbridge Flanagan South Pipeline got approved for expansion so they can just connect to the Alberta Clipper in Illinois and take the Tar Sands oil to Cushing, Oklahoma from there. They are proposing another plan to put the crude from a new Sandpiper Pipeline onto tankers and ship it across Lake Superior to midwest refineries. Then there are all the trains. I love the names they give these pipelines. At any rate, these investors don't appear overly concerned with the College Divestment Campaign or with Powershift or with the new Prius. Everyone worldwide, and especially Americans, will always want more. Give us wind, solar AND fossil fuels! Now we can really roll! I got an email from the Tea Part Patriots that reads: "The Ruling Class is Still Shielding Obama." This is language right out of the Socialist workers Party handbook. I also got a fundraising letter from a guy running for the Montana House adressed "Fellow Patriot"- He says The People don't like being spied on (all of a sudden), they want lower taxes, they want the right to bear arms and they want to "stop the indefinite detention of Americans". Nothing about drone strikes on American Muslim citizens. Think I'll spend some time today and try to get some Obamacare. I've been without health insurance since May and I'm ready to give up my Freedom and join the socialist system.

Left Unity

So - just to be clear- a global economic crisis did nothing to build a unified global left (Occupy's brief spark just a teaser). The release of thousands of classified documents showing imperialist barbarism and decadence and deceit did nothing to build a unified global left ("Arab Spring" still a chaotic spiral). The massive consolidation of wealth and historic levels of inequality that continues post-crisis does nothing to build a unified global left. Of course much of that angry energy is directed into nationalist or racist or xenophobic organizations and it is also very natural to simply retreat into some defensive posture of pure apathy or submission. Drinking through the crisis is always tempting. That's why I was surprised to see a new political party formation spring up in the United Kingdom calling itself Left Unity. From what I have been reading, Ken Loach has been instrumental in the process. After a convention last week they settled on some foundational principles and are ready to take on Labour. No one is deluded into thinking it won't be a long slog but following the demoralizing self-destruction of Socialist Workers Party, some healthy growth seems possible. This blog post over at Left Unity encapsulated many of the debates I have participated in here in our local setting and on the IOPS website. These questions don't go away. I just hope there is some young energy that can stare this beast right in the eye, David to Goliath, and not be overwhelmed. That there is a distinctly feminist critique is hopeful and when they see people of color coming over, they will know they have struck a chord. Examples such as Siriza or Die Linke are just that, examples and not models. Richard Seymour of the Leninology blog ( see my blogroll) covers the conference in this piece. Some insist a democratic workplace somehow makes it not capitalist. Some like Richard Wolff believe this is a route to anti-capitalism but not the goal. Some think a "mixed economy" is the best we can hope for and that workers will carry forward and increase their demands in the future. The New Deal and other Social Democratic projects suggest that this is hardly inevitable, that Capital has it's own counter proposals and strategy to meet such contingencies. But I am glad to see the debate alive and well. What might a Left Unity look like here in the good old USA?

Militancy

A few anti-coal activists attended the shareholders meeting of Aurizon Rail and informed the assembled investors that they were prepared to escalate their tactics to the point of disrupting coal train traffic if need be. This threat outraged a company spokesperson: "I am absolutely appalled at the suggestion lives would be put at risk for ideological beliefs!" She cried. Ah Yes, it is just unconscionable, beyond the pale, really, that one could even entertain the notion of risking objective violence (stopping a train?) over some abstract idea (preventing ecocide) Why, such an act might even terrorize someone, and we all know what that can lead to. Let's just relegate all violent impulses towards video games, shall we. Of course the subjective violence of poisoning the commonly held atmosphere can never be part of this conversation. And the market price of fossil fuels has nothing to do with ideology. Suffering in the periphery doesn't even count as a cost of doing business, while any damage here in the Center will only cost a little more PR. Well within the budget.This fast and loose talk of "disruption" can be managed by the state and the taxpayers can pick up that tab. Meanwhile, "Major operating companies have announced expansion plans and foreign entities are investing significant amounts of capital to buy oil sands interests, in many cases forming partnerships with Canadian companies." Canada National Energy Board 2013 Outlook Nothing violent about investing.It's how things get done.