Friends,
I attended the SSC on Saturday and attended 3 sessions. I did not
attend the one Louis P. discussed, but I heard about it through Harry
Magdoff. Perhaps capitalist relationships have become so dominant that it
is difficult even for critics to see through them. Surely growth and
productivity will kill us all in the end.
The 3 sessions I did attend were all very good. The first one,
"Bringing Marx Back" featured several first-rate discussions. Doug
Henwood gave a lucid account of the current financial insanity, utilising
Marx's rather fragmentary comments on finance to great effect. He made a
good point that financial markets are used by capitalsists to gain control
over the economy as a whole. He further pointed out that today, money has
become more or less completely divorced from social production. We
should all hope that Doug's book comes out soon! It promises clear
thinking and writing on what most people think of as hopelessly complex.
Second, Ellen Wood, newly elected co-editor of Monthly Review,
argued that as capital has become universal, in the sense that it has
permeated all aspects of life throughout the world, Marxism, as the
science of capital, is now needed more than ever. She partially developed
the very interesting idea that much of post-Marx Marxism has dealt with
capital's "external" aspects (theories of imperialism, etc), rather than
its internal contradictions. But now that capital has embraced the entire
globe, we need to return to analysing the system as a whole.
Unfortunately, the left has proved so far to be inadequate to this task,
and she developed some ideas as to why this is so. I hope that she will
develop these ideas more fully in the future.
Third, Daniel Singer strongly criticized social democracy and
pointed to many signs of working class rebellion against the neoliberal
regimes attempting to turn back the clock on workers' rights and lving
standards. He urged a coherent frontal attack on capitalism, by which he
meant, I assume, a united sorking class attack, the only thing which
capital really fears.
Finally, Istvan Meszaros (I don't dare spell this incorrectly!)
made a number of interesting points connected to the idea that Marxism is
hardly dead. He wondered if capital does not need a "respectable" left (if
it does, all the more reason for radicals to relentlessly criticize social
democracy, market socialism, etc.). He argued that capitalsim is
completely uncontrollable and today's universal capitalism is engaged in
"destructive production." He warned leftists against any acceptance of
the logic of a labor market, pointing out that we had better be ready to
accept the political implications of full employment, high wage struggles.
This first meeting was jam-packed with people, who literally sat
in every available space. I was very impressed with this and the general
enthusiasm for a return to Marx.
The second session was also well-attended and was titled something
like "Rebuilding the Labor Movement from Below". Activist and writer
Jane Slaughter chaired the session and made a sharp critique of the
Sweeney regime in the AFL-CIO, pointing out that union democracy and
workplace control are not on the leadership's agenda. Then activists
David Pratt (TDU), Cesar Ayala (Latino Workers' Center), and Tim
Schermerhorn (TWU New Directions) described their organizations attempts
to build various types of democratic workers' movements. I was struck
with the importance of democracy within the workers' movement. In his
recent Monthly Review piece, Greg Albo suggest that in this age of
capitalism's universalization, the struggle for democracy has become more
radical than ever. So how can we push forward the struggle for democratic
control of society if one of the main vehicles of that struggle, the
workers' movement, is not intelf maximally democratic. I was curious,
however, about what these activists themselves see as the goal of their
struggles beyond their goals in their specific organizations. This
session was marred a bit by some speches given by sectarians, but I guess
that that goes with the territory.
The third session was about postmodernism and chaired by John
Foster. the panelist gave good arguments for the need to see the backward
political implications of much postmodernism. Again the idea was
presented that the totalizing nature of capitalism requires a totalizing
critique.
All in all, I came away energized and more optimistic than I've
been in a long time. But, of course, I only wnet to three sessions and
these were organized by groups which I have long supported, so I am sure
my views are somewhat biased.
Michael Yates
