Just to reply quickly to Louis's points: 1. To begin with, there was absolutely nothing about Venezuela or Haiti - two of the more important hot spots in the world today.
Reply: Best to concentrate on what is there, not on what is not there. Louis underestimates very much the attack of Richard Pipes-type neo-conservative Stalinism on the academic freedom of thought, the academic freedom of expression and the academic free inquiry. Most, if not all, of those socialist scholars at the conference would oppose foreign subversion in Haiti and Venezuela, but this does necessarily mean that they are in a position where they can speak about that publicly. Louis sees socialist academics are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, and therefore, he cannot solve the organisational question in this specific area either. 2. Discussions of imperialism and the world economy are becoming more and more a centerpiece of such gatherings. (...) Is the patient healthy? Is GDP rising? Reply: I've predicted that for years, and had planned to publish on that by now, except, I was politically a bit naive about the capacity of racist imperialism to really wreck my own life, assisted by eggheads claiming to be "scientific" or "artistic". And I was not even talking about Venezuela or Haiti or anything. Louis is correct, many of these scholarly people do not know what the questions really are, or what the point of the theory is. There I agree with him. Nevertheless, much of their work is extremely valuable. Louis's problem here really is, that he is always looking for the most radical position from within the socialist camp. This causes a perceptual distortion, since statistically, people at such a conference are already more radical or more advanced in their thinking at least, than the majority of the US population. If Louis wants to tell other people what to do their research on, or how to do their research, that's okay, but then he has to explain why. 3. Entirely missing from these discussions is the all important question of what is to be done. Reply: I don't see what Louis's problem is here. It's quite clear what is to be done, and most of those scholars are doing it. What else do you expect a socialist scholar to do, except scholarly research in his field of interest ? The question is how you could help them, in doing what they are already doing, better. As regards "What is to be done", this is an activist question. There is absolutely no way, that a scholar can solve the political problem of organisation, except for himself or herself personally, at most he could contribute to that problem. theoretically, or in terms of empirical research. A scholar cannot be also an political activist, or at least, not all of the time, otherwise no scholarship and teaching would get done. In addition scientific integrity limits the possibilities for political activity. The real challenge is to see how you can utilise the contributions of researchers and their research (what they are already doing), and if you can link them (1) to other researchers in their area of interest, and (2) to people who are appropriately placed to benefit from that research, and who are also prepared to defend those researchers in their academic position (since anti-imperialist and anti-elitist scholars get purged by neo-conservative-type Stalinism). What Louis needs to understand is that people like Horowitz, Pipes etc. really represent the indigenous American Stalinism, and that they are very prepared to justify the murder of far more people than Stalin even if officially they deny this. That is, Louis underestimates just how anti-human, reactionary and racist the neoconservatives are. In a certain sense, Louis is too "good" to understand how bad the neoconservatives are. 4. When it comes to activism, the SSC gives heavy representation to open enemies of classical Marxism. Reply: "Classical Marxism" doesn't really exist anyway and never existed. That was just a typology which the honourable "menshevik" Isaac Deutscher had, which does not truly apply to historical realities if you really know about them. It's more a sort of studenty myth Trotskyists and Cliffites have made about the "glory days" of socialism, without understanding the real dialectic of ideas and material reality. Just because Chris Harman publishes a book about "the real Marxist tradition" doesn't mean it is true, you are much better off listening to a Tori Amos CD. If Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and other golden oldies are being attacked, the question is not whether this is sacrilege, but rather whether or not the attack is valid, is not valid, or is irrelevant. Suppose that in reality the dillemma was not socialism or barbarism, but the victory of socialism, or the victory of Marx. Which then would you choose ? Of course ! You would choose the victory of socialism. Who cares about whether Marx was correct or not, if we can have a real egalitarian, non-violent and free society ? 5. During the discussion period, I asked Klein if she is not a socialist, then what is she? Is the idea to fight for autonomous factory occupations, squats and soup kitchens in perpetuity? Reply: Personally, I used to be critical of Naomi Klein years ago, but I've actually got much more sympathetic recently because of her truly excellent publications. Louis again mistakes the real problem which autonomism tries to answer, namely how you can live a life of integrity according to your true beliefs, when large numbers of people try to mess around with the most intimate details of your life, destroy your health, and steal/exploit what they can from your life and life energy. Also, Louis fails to understand and tackle the question of how specifically Naomi Klein could contribute constructively to answers about the problems of socialist transition, in other words, a feasible socialism, a feasible alternative to the downsidesof modern capitalism. 6. The primary sponsor of the event is the Democratic Socialists of America, who basically function as the leftwing of the Democratic Party. Reply: If that is so, then Louis is actually a guest of a socialist group with whom he has major differences and disagreements. But then so what ? If Louis has a problem with the fact, that the DSA is a left-wing of the Democrats, then why hang around them ? Why visit a conference only to disparage it ? What is the point of this, and how can it lead to a principled politics ? The real question is, whether the DSA can shift Democrat politics in a more progressive direction; if the answer is yes, then you try to work out how that could best be done; if it is no, then you could make an argument as to why you think they are better off concentrating their energies in some other area. But if it's a scholarly conference, you have to argue that out, through facts and logic. Even so, if you are not even in the DSA, then you are not well placed to tell them, how to conduct their politics. 7. Unfortunately revolutionary socialism has no such equivalent venue. Reply: That is correct, and revolutionary socialists do not necessarily need such a venue either. In fact many of them wouldn't dream of using a telephone for communications. Again Louis underestimates the scale and impact of neo-conservative Stalinism on the world, and on progressive, freedom-loving people, the fact that many people must cope with surveillance and so on. Of course, Greenspan, Bush, Pipes, Kristol and all those people declare themselves in favour of freedom, but the reality is the absolute opposite, they are all totalitarians and Stalinists. That is what I think is progressive about Zizek, because he shows how linguistically verything gets inverted and turned upside down, the doublespeak of imperialism. The neoconservative-Stalinist emphasis on an "external enemy of freedom" is just a cover for an "internal attack on freedom". In summary, I think that in respect to this conference, (1) Louis takes a one-sided interpretation which emphasises what is not there, rather than what is there, raising the question why is he there and this is also a recipe for disappointment. The real dialectic of the actual and the potential is not to focus on the discrepancy of the idea and the reality, but to discover the potential in the actual and how you could develop it. (2) Louis does not assess people, events, themes and situations in a process of motion and development, in other words historical thinking is lacking. (3) Louis does not consider and distinguish between different modes of learning and obtaining knowledge, and what that implies. (4) Louis lowers the real effect that he could himself potentially have as a socialist. This criticism of Louis does not mean that I do not value Louis, but that I think that Louis makes a mistake, just as Louis thinks I make a mistake. Jurriaan
