Louis Proyect wrote:
>The problem I have with this latest installment in the
>postmodernism debate is that it is far too abstract to be of much
>use. When Callari refers to 'Marxists' and the 'left', I'm not sure
>who he is referring to. If he's referring to the CP, then we can
>recognize the kind of 'factory-floor' reductionism that this
>organization substituted for Marxism and that so appalls him
>But the left has been much broader than the CP for at least several
>decades and has been much more open to feminism and
>antiracism that he gives it credit for. If anything, the stick has been
>bent much too far in the other direction. Throughout the 80's, a
>number of identity-based movements came into existence and
>operated in isolation from one another. Of course, independent
>movements are in the best position to set out their own agenda
>and win gains. But these divided movements are not too effective
>when they confront a united ruling-class offensive such as we've
>witnessed since the Carter presidency.
Exactly! So, the question is: how can they be united, made into a movement
in which various forms of struggle can participate without fear of having
their "issues" their particular experiences of oppression, not demoted,
relegated to some secondary status. I put a lot of emphasis, just as
Proyect does, on the need to overcome the fragmentation of these forms of
resistance; exactly because I think there is much validity still to the
Marxist analysis of capital as a force of domination which eats up, so to
speak, all social sites; subjects them all to its logic, etc. So, in this
context, struggles against oppression will be much more effective if they
are able to confront the offensives of capital in unison, and not go it
alone (go it alone can, and does, often mean making a deal with capital at
the expense of the struggles of other groups, and in the interests of a
minority within the oppressed group: need I mention examples). So, I think
the task is not so much to recognize the existence of these different
identity groups (women, minorities, etc.): they do not need our
recognition, thank you! They have been able to exist with out permission.
Rather, the point is, now that we have this fragmentation, how to overcome
it, how to recreate a movement. But, if this movement can no longer (and
thank god for that) be built by asking a group that is reacting to a
particular form of oppression to subordinate their struggles in the name of
a higher struggle [a false promise, if we have to judge by historical
experience], then on what basis can it be built? The idea of a decentered
subject is only an hypothesis that may be helpful because it recognizes,
from the very start, the existence of irreducible diverse identities; so,
it is a philosophical (not metaphysical) basis from which to start thinking
about the foundations for a new type of movement. If we don't have a new
typ of movement, then we will have exactly what Proyect laments: the
inability to confront effectively the offesive of capital (which is exactly
what has been happening).
Perhaps this is abstract; but it has clear concrete practical piolitical
implications. It may be the case that people can do political work without
worrying about theory/philosophy etc..; but at some point, somehow, in the
making of certain strategic choices, etc. theory/philosophy is important
and has specific effects--and every activist in fact has a philosophy. So
it is not tenable to not worry about theory--as long as the
political/concrete implications are thought out.
>Socialism has been discredited for reasons that everyone is
>familiar with, but at a certain point all of the various movements,
>including the trade union movement, will have to operate within a
>common political framework in order to achieve fundamental
>change.
>
>We should open our eyes to new formations that have emerged
>over the last ten years or so which unite various social movements
>on a class basis. The Workers Party in Brazil is such a party and
>seems poised to win the upcoming elections. This can serve as an
>example of the kind of party we need in the US. Right now,
>activists from the women's, black, environmental and trade union
>movements are stuck with the Democratic Party, the party owned
>and controlled by Wall St. investment banks, real estate magnates
>and Hollywood dream-merchants. Unless we come up with an
>alternative, no lasting progress can be achieved.
>
>To move from where we are now to some position of strength in
>the future requires adroit political organizing by a new generation
>of activists. Postmodernist philosophy can not move us in this
>direction.
Antonio Callari
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
POST MAIL: Department of Economics
Franklin and Marshall College
Lancaster PA 17604-3003
PHONE: 717/291-3947
FAX: 717/399-4413
