The Impossible and the Impossible
While I’m posting things, Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek recently published a good article about the permanent state of crisis in New Left Review recently. I don’t agree with everything, but there’s lots of good food for thought there. I particularly like this passage, which is worth quoting in its entirety:
In such a constellation, the very idea of a radical social transformation may appear as an impossible dream—yet the term ‘impossible’ should make us stop and think. Today, possible and impossible are distributed in a strange way, both simultaneously exploding into excess. On the one hand, in the domains of personal freedoms and scientific technology, we are told that ‘nothing is impossible’: we can enjoy sex in all its perverse versions, entire archives of music, films and tv series are available to download, space travel is available to everyone (at a price). There is the prospect of enhancing our physical and psychic abilities, of manipulating our basic properties through interventions into the genome; even the tech-gnostic dream of achieving immortality by transforming our identity into software that can be downloaded into one or another set of hardware.
On the other hand, in the domain of socio-economic relations, our era perceives itself as the age of maturity in which humanity has abandoned the old millenarian utopian dreams and accepted the constraints of reality—read: capitalist socio-economic reality—with all its impossibilities. The commandment you cannot is its mot d’ordre: you cannot engage in large collective acts, which necessarily end in totalitarian terror; you cannot cling to the old welfare state, it makes you non-competitive and leads to economic crisis; you cannot isolate yourself from the global market, without falling prey to the spectre of North Korean juche.
Zizek is using the word “perversion” in the Freudian sense I gather, though it is a bit dodgy still so mentally replace “plurality” if you want. He can be a bit of a prat, and there are numerous mindnumbing “controversial” “anti-PC” bits in his books (eg the transphobic comments at the start of Violence).
Still, I like the broader point of the passage- that we live in an age that encourages some forms of individualist self-expression generally (the ubiquitous “make-over,” and Zizek of course minimises the kinds of policing and violence on those), but at the same time, many collective solutions to human suffering are off the table. Which is worth thinking about given that collective solutions to problems like poverty and the environment seem increasingly important given the utter failure of the neoliberalist public-private-partnership ethos that mostly just allows companies to permeate the public sphere in every possible way. There’s a certain strain of thinking that offers the right kind of shopping and consumption as an individualist solution to these problems (that is, shopping at your local farmer’s market rather than at Walmart, becoming a vegan rather than eating meat, buying Fair Trade coffee etc), but Zizek is quite right in pointing out that we need much much more than that, we need collective solutions and collectivist strategies, and we need to remove the idea that “the market” is the ultimate arbiter of what is useful and politically viable, that the only things of value can be measured by profitability.
When we start down that road, we start measuring is it worth it to save this person’s life, or will it discourage investment if we dare put in minimal checks on bankers or environmental protections to prevent catastrophe. And as soon as we do that, we’re already fucked. No, the market will not fix anything itself unless compelled, and neither will governments making reforms by inches when the situation demands miles.
Capitalism is eating itself and everyone and everything it touches. It really needs to go. It behaves – at best – in short-term interest and has no concern for long term consequences. It’s okay to economically exploit the shit out of a population while depriving or not providing them with the economic means to actually have purchasing power, and locks up the vast majority of money in masturbatory banking circle jerks.
Lisa Harney
23 Sep 10 at 2:46 pm
Yeah, I mean that’s the thing – it’s not even working on its own terms, beyond allowing the top 1% to pillage and despoil the world. Trickle-down is total, nonsensical crap, you cannot run an economy off the financial speculation of the ultra-rich because it’s not. fucking. real. Any “recovery” is likely to be illusory, maybe at best we’ll boom in a couple years and then bust again again 8 years after that.
We really are in 19th century territory in many ways.
Queen Emily
23 Sep 10 at 3:04 pm
Someone actually argued trickle down in one of my posts on the economy. It was pretty hilarious.
Like, all that money in banks does something for the economy because people can borrow it and use it! Except of course, credit is a big part of the problem, except of course many many people don’t have the credit to borrow all that much money compared to what’s tied up in there, except of course it’s mainly the rich borrowing from the rich.
That economic dominance needs to be broken down to allow for healthy redistribution. It’s necessary if we want to end poverty. Anyone who is not in the upper class and is opposed to ending poverty is basically participating in enforcing their own oppression. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans fall into this category because they believe the system flows upward when in fact it pushes downward, hard.
Lisa Harney
23 Sep 10 at 3:31 pm
The thing that I despair about is what is to replace capitalism. The article by Eric Loomis that Emily linked in the open post calls for a return to Marxist class analysis and (I think?) using that as a basis for a new kind of socialism, but what’s to prevent that from degenerating into another USSR or China?
For a while, I thought that anarcha-communism or anarcha-syndicalism was the answer, but again what’s to prevent a particular collective from becoming an oppressive power structure in its own right? Every attempt that I’ve seen at organizing collectives of more than about ten members devolves into power struggles and oppressive acts (cue Marxist feminists insisting that trans women are men, etc).
The conclusion that I come to is that humans are inherently selfish and will engage in violence to defend “what’s mine”. Kyriarchy finds a way to flourish, regardless of the system; either the system feeds off of kyriarchy (capitalism) or kyriarchy distorts the system into something unrecognizable (Marx(ism) -> Stalin(ists)).
Yeah, not feeling very hopeful.
GallingGalla
23 Sep 10 at 5:21 pm
not hopeful either.
meanwhile, i check in on what the rabbit is up to.
b. sanford
23 Sep 10 at 9:44 pm
What could replace capitalism? Nothing.
Basically. :-)
Only a fool would say capitalism is fair. Only the oblivious would say Marxism is. (You can quote me if you like.)
The very basis of capitalism is its unfairness. The Austrian Kindergarten economists extol about “creative destruction”; the Chicago School pretend there’s a nirvana of knowledge. Those who make money in the market know it’s basically real life. (Believe me, it really is.)
This blog exists because of capitalism. The Internet exists because of capitalism. It was, originally, an invention to keep the lines of communication open in the event of a nuclear attack – you can see as much in its electronic protocols. The Soviets, the communists, didn’t have anything like it – they had a command and control structure. Capitalism is a force that has no boundaries, no controls. Most people like it.
Capitalism, for instance, is at the heart of giving Indonesian fishermen cellphones so they can call ahead to the docks and see who’s giving the best price. Capitalism ensures that all those previously destitute workers in China and Vietnam have jobs. (China’s controlled economy? Have you seen their numbers, lately? A billion dollars a day to keep their currency viable. Yeah, that’s a sure fire way of staying solvent. And, echoing a theme GallingGaga started in another post – how about the freedom the average Chinese person enjoys? How about those Tibetans, hmm?)
Unfettered capitalism isn’t so good. Nothing in extremis is. Regulatory oversight, Nouriel Roubini has some suggestions (one or two of which I think are ludicrous, but he has the Nobel and I don’t even have a degree) is part of the answer. Another is an out-of-this-world suggestion by Paul Romer, a fairly high-powered economist. (His ideas are detailed in “The Politically Incorrect Guide To Ending Poverty”, by Sebastian Mallaby, July/August 2010 issue of The Atlantic.)
Perhaps the question isn’t how to eradicate poverty, but how to spread the wealth? (Not to be facetious, of course.)
To end my point: you cannot have a planned economy and freedom. If you want freedom, you have to accept that capitalism is part and parcel of that. If you want to eradicate poverty by the forced redistribution of wealth, you have to accept that innovation is not going to happen.
(I am, perhaps, somewhat assumptive in making my comment.)
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
23 Sep 10 at 10:05 pm
Capitalism is going to bed hungry -every single night- so that you can eat at all the next week. Capitalism is getting harassed by the police for ~trespassing~ on private land–to get to the dumpster. Capitalism is not knowing if you’ll be living in the same place (or anywhere) in a month. Capitalism is only having internet access because some of your housemates are survival sex workers and need the internet for getting clients. Capitalism is not having a dryer or even any hot water in weeks. Capitalism is not seeing a doctor when your knees start to go and your back hasn’t not ached for a decade and you haven’t slept in days.
Capitalism is all this while your landlord visits friends all over the country/world and buys organic milk and cries oh noez he’s getting old and can’t do quite as much yoga as he used to. While you hear people who make more money in a month than you’ll make in your whole life complain about their fucking taxes going up a tad and now how can they afford their 7 houses. Capitalism is businesses putting rat poison in their dumpsters because if they can’t make you pay for it then no one can have it (even if you’re willing to go through it and cut off the worst bits). Capitalism is knowing that others are throwing away perfectly good food, living in mansions, etc while you can barely scrape enough to survive.
Hell yeah I’d rather live in Cuba.
drakyn
23 Sep 10 at 10:36 pm
Okay – go live in Cuba. Simple, right? I’m sure the Castro brothers distribute plenty of cake. God [sic] knows, they distribute precious little else.
I wasn’t aware a dryer was an essential?
To be perfectly harsh – people make their own choices. It’s a philosophy called “libertarianism”. You might have heard of it – it’s the idea behind America. (No, not that stupid Tea Party version. That’s barely concealed totalitarianism.)
Lots of isms around here. I wonder if a fly swatter would work?
Like I said, capitalism isn’t perfect. People fall through the cracks; that’s a social failing, not a failing of capitalism. It is the duty of society to protect those who cannot protect themselves; it’s also the duty of society to help those who are in need. How, and how well, that is accomplished is a different topic.
In short – I am not responsible for your plight. You are not responsible for mine. That’s unabashed libertarianism, and capitalism.
I have no health insurance. I have no job. I have no dental coverage. I have a gammy leg that keeps me up most nights. I’ve had it for years, and with the stress of our situation, it’s only getting worse. There are so many times I can barely walk because the pain is so great. We can barely afford to feed the cats, never mind ourselves. We’re still trying to figure out how we’re going to pay the damned electric bill. My wife works endless hours for what seems to be an ever-diminishing pay check. You will *never* find us complaining about “the system”.
I have a few ideas. Those ideas are mine. I’ve tried one – it didn’t work. I’ll try another, perhaps it will. And if that doesn’t, I’ll try another. And so on. My wife and I continue to apply for jobs. Yes, it gets disheartening – after your hundredth rejection that month, you do wonder a bit.
Self-pity has never solved problems. Move to Cuba. Send us a damned postcard.
Carolyn Ann
23 Sep 10 at 11:01 pm
Not this fallacy again. Telling us to go to Cuba because we oppose capitalism makes as little sense as telling you to go to Columbia (or any of the myriad other places wrecked by nominally-pro-capitalist regimes). None at all.
If you want hard-core libertarianism, you might want to look farther left – toward feminists like de Cleyre, toward socialist critics of Marx, such as Bakunin, and antislavery agitators before them.
Marja Erwin
24 Sep 10 at 12:37 am
your social, historic, economic, and power analysis could use some improvement. Or a basis.
Take your Libertarian crusade somewhere else; dont bother with the postcard.
o
24 Sep 10 at 1:52 am
Umm yeah, I’m not interested in libertarian twaddle. Indeed, by arguing There Is No Alternative Carolyn Ann pretty much made my point.
I am not responsible for your fate, you’re not responsible for mine is fundamentally bad faith and ignores the way that the government is intervening in our lives anyway. Everyone is inter-dependent, whether we like it or not. And like I said, capitalism of itself WILL NOT solve any environmental problems unless we can combat the reduction of everything of value to its money-making ability.
The reality-principle that change is fundamentally impossible (why again? because the USSR only lasted 70 years? many capitalist-democratic states have been and gone in shorter) is ITSELF purely ideological, purely political, as political as any movement against capitalism.
To get back on track, this is the key part of the bit that I quoted, the series of justifications at work in preventing social change:
“you cannot engage in large collective acts, which necessarily end in totalitarian terror; you cannot cling to the old welfare state, it makes you non-competitive and leads to economic crisis; you cannot isolate yourself from the global market, without falling prey to the spectre of North Korean juche.”
These prohibitions are not *just* about communism, they are about all kinds of social change. The first is just blanket, the second is against true Keynesian social democracy, the third against any kind of complete localism.
And the question is why? What is so very wrong about these possibilities? Why is something like the welfare state so off the table but insurance companies leaving people to die isn’t?
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 6:54 am
Oh, and did anyone read the Zizek piece in its entirety? I’d be interested in thoughts… especially the bit about revolutionary violence and how violence is *already* being deployed to defend the present order… I mean, is that a useful strategy? Or is that only going to lead to violence against the most marginalised rather than the actual ruling class currently fucking up the world?
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 7:15 am
I’m trying to get past the first one and a half pages. The number of errors, assumptions, carefully worded barbs and distortions is astounding! For you, I’ll actually read the whole thing; although it seems like he took writing lessons from Ayn Rand; he’s not quite as obtuse, though. (His “How to make a political point” teacher seems to have been Glenn Beck.) So forgive me if this takes a decade or two.
Drakyn said “Hell yeah I’d rather live in Cuba.”. I just told him to get on with it. :-) Besides, drakyn whines like crazy, and I point that I have some problems, too. But I don’t whinge about them and blame them on the “capitalist system”! (I hope I can be forgiven the occasional moan when my leg is particularly bad?)
I am a keen fan of capitalism. So what of it? I’m an entrepreneur! I need capitalism to pursue my ideas! Besides which, the last I checked no one except I am responsible for my decisions. I am precluding any interconnectivity between individuals and groups. For a society to function there needs to be some level responsibility toward it from individuals. Voting, adhering the laws, and so on. I use my local library with enthusiasm; it’s a government-provided service. (Mind you, I do pay a fee to be a member of it. I live in the back end of beyond, and the library is in a different county.) I reject the idea that there is a collective need to ensure the wealth of my neighbors. The reasons are pretty simple:
1. I don’t want anyone providing me with charity.
2. I never want someone else being responsible for my wellbeing. I am responsible for my wellbeing, me alone.
Those are separate and distinct to providing for the common welfare of a society.
(This being society and people we’re chatting about, forgive me if I don’t go into an endless list of who might be deserving of societal largess, and what that largess might be.)
I’ll be glad to provide further thoughts when I’ve endured, er, read Mr Zizek’s article. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
24 Sep 10 at 8:52 am
Oops – I inadvertently attached male pronouns to Drakyn. My sincere apologies! I don’t know Drakyn’s preferred pronoun, and although I tried to take care with that matter, I obviously failed to be careful enough. Again, my apologies.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
24 Sep 10 at 8:54 am
You confuse critique with whining, and obfuscate the fact that the only reason we do not have full employment is because of profit-maximising.
*Richard Nixon* was trying to get full employment, for God’s sake, but now it’s considered crazy Lefty rubbish to point out that if you have a permanent underclass then that’s not a bug, it’s a feature of the economic system. This is only a comparatively recent phenomenon that we accept unemployment and poverty as natural, morally neutral states caused by personal deficiency. It’s fucking not.
The fact is, large numbers of citizens are essentially useless, unnecessary appendages to mechanised and computerised industry. And what jobs there are done for 3rd world wages. I posted a link a few weeks ago about how India’s outsourcing to the US now. That’s not an aberration, that’s a symptom of workers not having legal protection for FAIR wages.
Mazel tov on being an entrepreneur, but some of us actually want solutions of broader social problems that extend beyond scrambling into the tiny number of the elite screwing everyone else over.
I don’t have anything at stake in defending Zizek per se (or Cuba ffs), what I *do* care about is people coming up with new solutions to our problems and thinking differently is the possible way to begin that process.
That everything’s apparently so bloody wonderful for you that you want to bootstrap your way out as the world crumbles is fine, but your solution is not helpful to anyone else at all.
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 9:15 am
Drakyn uses male pronouns, yes
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 9:15 am
Okay, I did it. :-) I read the entire thing. Some bits of I read twice – just to make sure I didn’t misunderstand his point. I even made notes, something I rarely do.
My conclusion? Twaddle.
He makes the same tired points far left thinkers have been making for generations. He asserts that the US is waging economic war against Venezuela – but doesn’t even stop to wonder why. Indeed, he makes a claim Castro is (was?) fond of making: “for the oppressed, violence is always legitimate—since their very status is the result of violence”
Wow! If that’s not stupid, I don’t what is!
I suspect that his notions of “liberty, equality and fraternity” are different to mine. If I had kids (we don’t), I’d like them to learn about liberty and equality. Fraternity can go take a long hike off a short bridge.
And to conclude his diatribe, he takes a swipe at eHarmony and Facebook, equating their success with something or other. I’m not sure what, but I suspect it probably indicates the decline of the bourgeoisie. Or their success over the proletariat. Something like that. (What the hell is love doing in a piece about an economic crisis? The man is no poet, I can assure you of that!)
His first bit, about rescuing the Euro, is so full of nonsense I gave up trying to keep a handle on it all. The bailouts were a concerted, and flawed, effort to stop a depression from happening. The Greek government spent too much money; unable to print more (because they were in the Euro), it was perceived they couldn’t pay what they owed. Some say they could, most – including the Greek socialist PM – noted that they probably couldn’t.
Overall, Mr Zizek makes about as much sense as Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter. He could start a left wing Tea Party with that drivel. He relies on the same techniques, the same leaps to half-baked conclusions and the same “cleverness”.
Is there any reason I need to take his writing seriously?
Carolyn Ann
PS I’m going to post this, or something like it, over on my blog.
Carolyn Ann
24 Sep 10 at 9:39 am
Good for you. Let a thousand tiresome flowers bloom on the blogosphere.
Now, I’d rather you voluntarily leave this thread because it’s not productive and you’re basically working my last nerve. Since you are in essence against social change I’d rather have this conversation without you, frankly.
Moving on…
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 9:45 am
For anyone still reading who is *not* Carolyn Ann, I’d like to suggest that we read Zizek as a provocative catalyst for social experiments rather than a God-like Theorist We Must Defend To The Death.
He says a lot of things I think are utter crap, but he also makes a lot of interesting comments designed to make us re-think situations.
So, I repeat my questions:
** the bit about revolutionary violence and how violence is *already* being deployed to defend the present order… I mean, is that a useful strategy? Or is that only going to lead to violence against the most marginalised rather than the actual ruling class currently fucking up the world?
** These prohibitions are not *just* about communism, they are about all kinds of social change. The first is just blanket, the second is against true Keynesian social democracy, the third against any kind of complete localism.
And the question is why? What is so very wrong about these possibilities? Why is something like the welfare state so off the table but insurance companies leaving people to die isn’t?
and one more question for good luck
** what DO we want? When we imagine a more equitable world, what do we think of?
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 9:51 am
Whining? Self-pity?
Actually that was anger but whatev I was just putting out some counter to your capitalism stanning.
I’ve certainly noticed the privatization and commodification of loads of institutions and things–fi, schools should not be for-profit!
I feel like general violence is likely to get turned around and hurt marginalized people. Moreover, it’ll later being used to turn the masses against whichever movement did the violence (and/or is blamed for it).
But I think the threat of violence can get some things done (like the threat of violent rebellion/riots if [charismatic leader] is arrested or assassinated).
I really like this line, “for the oppressed, violence is always legitimate—since their very status is the result of violence—but never necessary: it is always a matter of strategic consideration whether to use force against the enemy or not”.
I think perhaps all to often violence is used like a sledge-hammer when we should wield it as a scalpel–carefully cutting out the worst offenders but not to be used for riots and whatnot.
(too bad we can’t get an Socialist-Batman in here…)
But I do feel like, while the mainstream left certainly sees removing capitalism as impossible or unwanted, there are grassroots efforts to try new things.
There are a ton of communal houses continuing and new ones springing up (I’m in a new one actually!).
People are trying all sorts of new things on the ground, so I do have hope that we can figure something out. Even if we have to use stopgap measures for a while for something macro can be developed (perhaps by one of the kids growing up in one of the micro-societies of communal living?); but we have to figure out something better.
(I really, really love this line, “the old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.”)
drakyn
24 Sep 10 at 10:02 am
You argue about full employment. I don’t.
Oh, don’t get me wrong: I don’t like the unemployment numbers, or the long term implications. The fact that so many people are losing their skills, or their skills are becoming irrelevant is a sad fact. Retraining people, promoting new factories (ie reversing the incentive to manufacture *some things* abroad) and trying to ensure that the next generation has the academic skills to get a job in an increasingly service-oriented, highly skilled economy are priorities.
Overturning the world order? Not so much.
I sincerely wish the Federal Reserve would start buying debt – it would help reduce unemployment. I praise the idea behind saving the car companies; it stopped something like 600,000 extra layoffs. I’m not so keen on the deficit-is-bad idea trumpeted by the GOP and tea Partiers. I think we need more stimulus dollars, not less! I’m also partial to Milton Friedman’s idea of simply dropping boat loads of cash onto every taxpayer! (Interestingly, if the Fed had given all US taxpayers about $50,000 each, it would have been cheaper than the bailout!)
I am quite a fan of global free trade; you might have guessed that. :-) It helps not just China purchase commodities for the products that end up on Walmart’s shelves, it also enables the Bolivian villager access to a market that they otherwise wouldn’t know of.
What I do know, and have said, is that capitalism isn’t fair. Society has an obligation to ensure that there is a reasonably level playing field; the difference between the far right and the far left is just how much of that playing field needs to be destroyed. (They agree the field is an eyesore that should be eradicated.)
You want alternative ideas? You really should seek out the article about Mark Romer. (Hey, I read Mr Zizek’s article at your exhortation! Believe me when I tell you Sebastian Mallaby’s article is a heck of a lot better written. Where Mr Zizek is opaque, Mr Mallaby is crystal clear. Where Mr Zizek takes a flying leap to a conclusion, Mr Mallaby gently guides the way. Where Mr Zizek confuses himself and his readers, Mr Mallaby leaves you feeling a little more knowledgeable. And so on. But I’m sure we can leave any debate about the quality of writing being important to the points being made for another day?)
The system isn’t bad. That it’s failed many of its constituents? That’s indisputable. That society has an obligation to help those who have been displaced? We could debate forever about those obligations, if they exist and the degree of assistance that’s required. You want a lot, I don’t. You might consider me cruel because of that, I assert that it’s because no one owes “you” anything. “o” stated my premise could use a base – that’s the base, “o”. No one owes me a thing, and I ain’t looking for any handouts, either.
Sorry, I’ve got things to do and cats to tickle. :-)
Carolyn Ann
24 Sep 10 at 10:11 am
I think that’s an interesting point about violence in the general versus specific. My question is: who would violence be legitimate against, when everyone’s a cog in the machine? Or is the only effective strategy to just remove the whole ruling class, in which case the casualties will be immense *and* quite possibly not remotely the right people anyway?
Let us not forget that the neocons effectively decided to do this with Iraq, so it’s not like *some* politicians don’t think that society remaking is worth more than bloodshed. Is that the right move in the wrong direction, or is that just a horrible horrible idea to even contemplate?
And yes, I think Zizek is right that violence is going on RIGHT NOW against marginalised people in capitalism. It’s business as usual for migrant workers to have shitty working conditions, or to die crossing the border when the US requires migrants *to* work those cheap jobs.
I love those kinds of grassroots efforts, but the question is, how to do we get from those to organise on a mass scale?
And yeah, the Gramsci line is great, so powerful.
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 10:13 am
My apologies, Queen Emily. I’d forgotten you’re not partial to having your ideas challenged, and that you truly do hate contradiction.
I hadn’t read your prickled exhortation before I posted my previous comment. I will now go tickle some cats. :-)
Carolyn Ann
24 Sep 10 at 10:16 am
I’m not partial to piss-taking nonsense, no.
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 10:16 am
fuel for thought when we’re thinking about social change and what we want, this really interesting paper by George Orwell called Can Socialists Be Happy?
http://www.readprint.com/work-1257/Can-Socialists-Be-Happy-George-Orwell
“Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary.”
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 10:19 am
I think violence as in murder is never morally justifiable. Once someone’s been born, they should be the only ones who get to decide if/when they end their life.
So that’s the short answer.
But the *violence* of the system is not just killing. It’s forcing millions to live in grinding poverty so that a few can have nice jeans and fancy cars. It’s rape. It’s mass incarceration. It’s working unpaid overtime because you have no option at another job. It’s everything Drakyn listed.
“Violent” protesters as defined by the state are often those who break windows, who defy boundaries, who vandalize.
So is there a possible definition for “violence” that would be acceptable? As in, I constantly joke about marching on Wall Street with a pitchfork, but…
What about the French Revolution? Did they go wrong when they forcibly removed the aristocracy, or did it only happen when they started guillotining people? What about removing those in power from the seat of their power by force? Are these things ever justifiable?
Sarah J
24 Sep 10 at 10:34 am
I think you’re very right about the other kinds of violence in the system, yeah. Violence against the psyche is a form of violence too, the way it cuts us off from being full human beings.
>>>“Violent” protesters as defined by the state are often those who break windows, who defy boundaries, who vandalize.
Right. Like, the idea of “looting” post-Katrina, when people were just trying to survive, it becomes very clear how police and the army protect property (that is, capital) before people.
The questions about the French revolution is a tough one. I’m inclined to think it was the guillotine, that it’s not the idea of seizing power for the many that’s a problem, it’s the violence becoming contagious. I mean, part of my concern, and yours and Drakyn’s is the excessive dimension of violence. Like, a crowd’s not really that far from being a mob, and mobs can be pretty random in target..
But I’m also aware that concern is precisely what Zizek says about collective action being glossed as necessarily leading to totalitarianism. I dunno.
I mean, how many bloodless coups have you heard about, Sarah?
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 10:44 am
In any case, I think violence is very far from being strategic as Drakyn suggested if we don’t have an actual goal. What good removing the bastards in power if you don’t have an idea of what you’d do better?
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 10:49 am
Right.
Once again, it’s the problem of looking to the past when what we want to do is create a new future. It’s why arguments like “Well Cuba failed!” are so ludicrous–we’re not SAYING we want to be Cuba, we’re saying we want something better. Freer. Newer.
So what I envision is less a coup than a kind of public uprising that makes it impossible for those in power to retain their power. Remember the first few days of the financial meltdown, when AIG execs were literally barricading themselves at home, afraid to go to work?
Power is symbolic in a lot of ways. If you drive a president out of the White House, or drive the bankers off Wall Street, you haven’t really prevented them from doing their jobs…
I’m getting sick, so I think I’m rambling.
Sarah J
24 Sep 10 at 10:50 am
No, I get you. I think it’s a good point. Most of the truly powerful jobs don’t require the person to be in a given place anymore. Wall Street *is* basically all online, right? They could just do the same job in their PJs from Tokyo or where-ever, you know?
So yeah, reclaiming public space AS public makes sense. Almost like, an autonomous liberated territory?
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 10:54 am
Or, contrawise, is the problem a failure of nerve in liberal-democracy?
Like, Australia’s greatest Prime Minister Gough Whitlam just said, nope we’re making the health system public, and now education is free.
When there was a crisis of financial capitalism suddenly there was TRILLIONS of dollars available for no-strings loans, but governments play poor about not being able to just nationalise industries, or find money for poverty? It’s untruthful bullshit.
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 10:57 am
I guess what I mean, if we had a fair minimum wage, and universal health care, and free education at all levels, and good public transport etc etc.. is that enough?
Or is capitalist exploitation inevitable?
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 11:01 am
And one more comment if people are wondering what does this have to do with transphobia, and when and why did QT turn Commie all of a sudden..
A lot of the issues we face are magnified exponentially by the endemic unemployment rate in our community. Discrimination leads to unemployment which leads to homelessness which leads to exclusion from cissexist shelters which can lead to survival sex work which leads to our astronomically HIV infection rate. And any combination of those factors.
In the open thread I highlighted Anne’s on-point needs assessment: “decriminalization, housing, education and employment.”
Full employment, universal health care and universal education would address a lot of that. A lot.
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 11:15 am
** what DO we want? When we imagine a more equitable world, what do we think of?
Elimination of capitalism and class. Elimination of money as the driver for economy, which will require a dramatic reworking of economy. As part of that, valuing people for who they are and not for how much others can produce off of their labor.
Elimination of the nation-state. Formation of local collectives using a structure (which I don’t know what it looks like, hence my own sense of hopelessness) that prevents / eliminates oppressive behavior. Each collective would look and operate somewhat differently from each other, but collectives would be able to cooperate in a manner that allows the maintenance of critical large-scale infrastructure, such as the internet. Collectives probably wouldn’t be permanent, but would organically form, grow, merge, split, or fold up shop as the needs dictate – and I think that this organic process might just reduce the intra-collective power struggles that I’ve seen happen – which is likely due to trying to maintain collectives in an oppressive capitalist environment.
I wouldn’t want to see those 1000-foot office towers or 10,000-square-foot suburban mcmansions blown up. I’d like to see them reused as affordable housing for all. That 10,000-square-foot mcmansion can easily house three or four families, and that 1000-foot office tower can house hundreds of families and provide meeting space for a significant number of collectives.
Where do I personally see myself fitting into this? I don’t. I don’t think I can function within a collective structure (my mental and developmental disabilities make it very hard for me to be anything but a loner). I see myself as pushed out of the way. It’s something I accept may have to happen. I see this being a movement of primarily of young people. (Part of capitalism is, I think, ageism used as a means to prevent young (under 30 or so) people from developing and executing ideas / ideals – at least long enough so that those young people can either be exhausted by decades of marginalization or be co-opted by capitalism (as in, turned into 501(c)(3) “nonprofits”.
As to how a collective-based system can replace capitalism and nationalism, the only non-violent way I can think of doing this is by a national (or better, international) strike. And that had best happen soon, with people ready to sacrifice if they aren’t already, before it’s too late for a strike to have much threat value to capitalists. A strike coordinated across multiple nations would probably be more effective than an US-only strike.
GallingGalla
24 Sep 10 at 11:37 am
See, I don’t have a problem with the nation-state per se – I think it’s an apparatus that can be deployed in good or bad ways. I personally find anarchism unconvincing precisely because of this. Marx said that communism *required* a certain level of technological development, and I feel like it also requires a certain level of distribution and a certain level of power being deployed for the common good. You know, like I say, there’s no outside to power…
Now, maybe you could have territories or whatever rather than nations, but at a certain point you still need decisions to be made for a given area/body of people..
I like the idea of redeploying mcmansions and sky scrapers *very* much though, that’s really great.
And yes, agree that widespread strikes should definitely be part of any movement, violence should be a last resort. You know, the Greeks were on the streets of Athens protesting the austerity measures, but the US, the UK? Passive as hell.
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 11:45 am
I do like the idea of mobile units too, though I’m not sure how that’d work.
Could you flesh that out or drop some links or book recs? Is that an anarchist idea? Sounds very Deleuzian, or like Hardt and Negri..
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 11:49 am
RE: anarchism – I’m not convinced that it can work, nor am I convinced that it can’t. I’ve read some critiques (Jane Laplaine, I think?) that point out that collectives often recreate the same oppressions that the collectives supposedly oppose.
I’m sorry that I don’t have many links (if your even addressing the drop-some-links comment to me). For one thing, I just cannot deal with theorists (tried a few, like Foucault, but just can’t get through the language). I guess? books like “The Revolution Will Not Be Funded” and anarchafemme’s blog, articles like those written by Eric Loomis and Sarah Jaffe on Global Comment and such, and past discussions here on QT.
What can I say? I’m not very well read.
GallingGalla
24 Sep 10 at 12:09 pm
collectives often recreate the same oppressions that the collectives supposedly oppose.
Not to mention that I’ve seen this happen (frex, I was considering joining a collective that ran a bookstore until I noticed the rampant *isms – you name ‘em, they had ‘em – within the collective).
GallingGalla
24 Sep 10 at 12:11 pm
Yeah, I was addressing my comment to you, GG! Wasn’t a criticism of your reading habits, I was just intrigued by the idea and was wondering if it was a common one. I should confess: I’ve been meaning to read the “The Revolution Will Not Be Funded,” it’s a bit embarrassing I haven’t.
I think it’s fair to be agnostic about anarchism, but you know even if I’m a bit more skeptical about it I don’t think it should be off the table by any means…
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 12:15 pm
“Mazel tov on being an entrepreneur”
Thank you, Queen Emily. That was very gracious of you. :-)
Carolyn Ann
24 Sep 10 at 12:46 pm
Carolyn Ann, you know that Cuba´s citizens aren´t struggling to obtain the most basic necessities because Cuba is communist, right?
piny
24 Sep 10 at 1:04 pm
Re: splitting up mcmansions into multiple affordable housing units: This idea is partly informed by my own experiences. I was raised in a family of four in a house of about 1800 sq ft, which by 1960′s standards was a decent size for a suburban home. Somehow I don’t feel deprived because I didn’t get to be raised in a 6000 or 7500 sq ft house with 5-foot flat screen tvs and computers in every room.
Also, I’ve spent most of my adult life living in small apartments and am currently living in two rooms in a 90-year-old house in a working-class neighborhood where people are struggling to raise their kids in homes of about the same size (1800 sq ft or less). I look at my neighbors, struggling with chronic unemployment, insufficient or nonexistent health insurance, etc; and despite this, this neighborhood is exactly that: a *neighborhood*, where people help each other out after big snowstorms, have block parties, etc.
And then I look at where my Dad lives, in the suburbs, and I see these gigantic homes that are three times the size that anybody needs, and the absolute sterility, and the utter *lack* of a sense of community, and shake my head. Then my thoughts turn to how many families we could house comfortably in these massive units and how many homeless and near-homeless people there are…and it just ain’t right.
@piny: inorite? It’s not like there’s an embargo imposed by capitalists states or nufin!
GallingGalla
24 Sep 10 at 1:21 pm
It’s a good idea, GG. I *hate* the suburbs, and the very idea of private space (gated communities, yech) makes me break out in hives. The suburbs are not efficient in terms of providing services like electricity, water, public transport etc, and they’re horrifically environmentally unfriendly…
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 2:28 pm
With Sarah’s permission, I’m going to repost something she just said to me on chat that I think makes a really interesting distinction between “violence” and “force”. My responses are classic Greek dialogue (my God Socrates you are correct!) and copied mostly for Lisa’s amusement:
Sarah: so re-reading the ZIzek quote on your tumblr while I am waiting for people to do their shit so I can do mine and go the fuck home, I am struck by my different visceral reactions to “violence” rather than “use force”
me: Force is ok, violence is not?
Sarah: Right. I have a neutral-positive reaction to “force” because it has other connotations other than that 1. it implies strength or 2. “a force” — which implies a group, which can imply solidarity. English language, I love you :)
me: it’s true
Sarah: but either way I still think that ultimately we want democratic decision-making, not mob rule even if the mob IS the majority you can’t say “violence is ok THIS ONCE and then never again”
me: yeah
Sarah: The whole end of history bit was bullshit.
Me: It really was. Totally political itself.
Sarah: right. So there’s always the chance that if you legitimize violence, it is legitimized against you
Me: It’s true.
Sarah: I don’t know. One of my first lefty causes really was hating the death penalty. And that, as i was telling them this morning, was just pure gut-level emotional reaction, no one taught me about it really until later… Second real cause, my first was the gay-straight alliance in high school
Me: And both of those are anti-violence, it’s true. And you know, if we’re mobilising against the violence of the system, then not using violence does make sense
Sarah: And the anti-death penalty movement is not only anti violence, but anti legitimized violence
Me: yeah
Sarah: It’s anti state violence, sure, but what it really is is saying there is NO justification for killing people. So a lot of my politics came from that thinking, really.
Queen Emily
24 Sep 10 at 2:45 pm
Em, I have to laugh at your reference to this article “about the permanent state of crisis in New Left Review recently.” I read that and thought, “Oh no, yet another publication being torn apart by infighting!” I was expecting to read about Tariq Ali and Susan Watkins fighting verbal duels a la “The Life of Brian” — “splitter!”
Thanks for the Zizek article. He is often a difficult read, in part because he assumes the reader to be thoroughly briefed in a Marxist analysis of capitalism. Zizek doesn’t take the reader step by step through how he arrives at his conclusions; he simply puts them out there as givens, and then talks about the choices we make if and when we share this understanding of the world.
Capitalism isn’t all bad but it expects too little. Capitalism always has and forever will be in a series of predictable crisis. Reading Marx will show you that, in a step by step manner. So if you say you love capitalism, then own up to your acceptance of mass poverty and an unequal distribution of wealth. Proudly demand that the rich will forever receive more democracy and socialism in the form of bailouts than the average citizen. I have higher expectations for humanity. I keep seeing productive public actions over and over again, despite the lack of monetary reward.
I changed my own mind on the subject of violence when I was studying the Minneapolis Trotskyists who went to prison for their antiwar beliefs in 1940. James P Cannon wrote “Socialism on Trial” and this part can be found in Part V:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/ch05.htm
1) The Marxists prefer a peaceful transition. “The position of the Marxists is that the most economical and preferable, the most desirable method of social transformation, by all means, is to have it done peacefully.”
2) “It is the opinion of all Marxists that it will be accompanied by violence.”
3) That opinion “is based, like all Marxist doctrine, on a study of history, the historical experiences of mankind in the numerous changes of society from one form to another, the revolutions which accompanied it, and the resistance which the outlived classes invariably put up against the new order. Their attempt to defend themselves against the new order, or to suppress by violence the movement for the new order, has resulted in every important social transformation up to now being accompanied by violence.”
However, Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil are showing us something different. Progress has and is being made without a violent revolution. The capitalists continue to use violence to try to regain power. In the past, capitalism has won by overthrowing popular power at its onset (Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Haiti, Honduras). The case of Venezuela and Bolivia seem different because they have survived this violent backlash not once, not twice, but over and over again.
Why is it that Venezuelans and Bolivians can see the possibilities of a better world and take the streets to make it happen, when Europeans are asking for only crumbs and band-aids? If change is possible there, with so little precedent, what possible change are we missing by being too timid in our beliefs?
Frankly, I don’t know the answer. But I do know we are better at learning from the successes of others now than we ever have been in the past, because of our advanced communications. We can learn about experiments all over the world and pick and choose those that may apply in our own communities.
Why not look at what Cuba has done where they are clearly outpacing the world: in medical training, in the fisheries industry, in urban agriculture, in re-tooling ancient machinery and try to replicate it here?
tl;dr: a better world is possible; it’s happening right now
Ravenmn
25 Sep 10 at 12:29 pm
Thanks for that, Ravenm. A couple points:
1. Zizek is a definitely tough read, beyond his general antipathy to the “identity politics” of feminism, GLBT etc activism. It’s not just that he precedes as though you already agree with him (though he does do that), he proceeds as though you already agree with him about his readings of Marx, Lacan and Hegel. Which is a big ask even if you do roughly share the same intellectual heritage as him..
I think the inability to learn from countries like Venezuela and Bolivia is partly Eurocentrism – a Eurocentrism that Zizek himself overwhelmingly shares, with constant pops at Chavez and the Zapatistas in Mexico etc – and partly a capitalist realim itself that even the Left shares. We’ve been told for so long that There Is No Alternative that many of us have bought it, and many of us aren’t desperate or imaginative enough to feel like we *need* liberation. But yes, I especially like this bit:
“Capitalism isn’t all bad but it expects too little. Capitalism always has and forever will be in a series of predictable crisis. Reading Marx will show you that, in a step by step manner. So if you say you love capitalism, then own up to your acceptance of mass poverty and an unequal distribution of wealth. Proudly demand that the rich will forever receive more democracy and socialism in the form of bailouts than the average citizen. I have higher expectations for humanity. I keep seeing productive public actions over and over again, despite the lack of monetary reward.”
Yes and yes! These things are inherent, even in social democratic countries with decent safety nets that attempt to moderate those ill social effects.
And re: higher expectations for humanity (which I share) – there is nothing more ideologically motivated than the bastardised social Darwinism of neoliberalism (brought to its logical conclusion in libertarianism), the view that people already ARE selfish to the point of world-destruction therefore they SHOULD be. Which is not only inaccurate and reductive, it is itself prescriptive, attempting to remove the better possibilities in human nature that it’s ruled out in advance as detrimental to the capitalist project.
But yes. A better world is possible, right now.
Queen Emily
27 Sep 10 at 6:43 am
[...] unique to transgender people–they’re problems that are shared across oppressed groups. She writes: I highlighted Anne’s on-point needs assessment: “decriminalization, housing, education and [...]
Editor’s Diary: Whither Socialism?
3 Oct 10 at 5:29 pm
[...] unique to transgender people–they’re problems that are shared across oppressed groups. She writes: I highlighted Anne’s on-point needs assessment: “decriminalization, housing, education and [...]
Whither Socialism? | Socialism and…
19 Oct 10 at 12:50 pm
“And yeah, the Gramsci line is great, so powerful.”
And so Hollywood-trailerese. And so fake.
Harriet
29 Oct 10 at 11:53 am
Gramsci: “L’aspetto della crisi moderna che viene lamentato come «ondata di materialismo» è collegato con ciò che si chiama «crisi di autorità». Se la classe dominante ha perduto il consenso, cioè non è piú «dirigente», ma unicamente «dominante», detentrice della pura forza coercitiva, ciò appunto significa che le grandi masse si sono staccate dalle ideologie tradizionali, non credono piú a ciò in cui prima credevano, ecc. La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati. ”
The appearance of the modern crisis that has come to be denounced as a ‘wave of materialism’ is tied to what we can call the ‘crisis of authority’. If the dominant class has lost its consensus, that is, if it is no longer the leading/ruling/managing class but only the dominant class, retaining purely coercive force, this means that the masses have extricated themselves from traditional ideology – they don’t believe in what they used to believe in, etc.. The crisis consists just in the fact that while the old is dying the new can’t be born: in this interregnum morbid phenomena of the most varied kind occur.
Harriet
29 Oct 10 at 12:04 pm
Yeah, I’m aware it’s a misattribution from the French translation, after I chased it up after reading this article. Still like it, so whatevs.
Queen Emily
29 Oct 10 at 1:19 pm
“Still like it, so whatevs.”
Okay, but to put Goebbels’ words in Gramsci’s mouth is rather like doing this:
http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2042#comments
to communists.
Harriet
30 Oct 10 at 11:34 am
(Your blog is great, btw. I learn a lot here.)
Harriet
30 Oct 10 at 11:39 am
“I’d be interested in thoughts… especially the bit about revolutionary violence and how violence is *already* being deployed to defend the present order…”
The biggest problem is that the “revolutionary violence” Zizek recommends is for white supremacist, fascist not socialist ends. His point is to advocate precisely for violence, routine and extreme, against the most marginalised – he makes no mystery of it. This is why he supported this pogrom against a Roma family in his own country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPgnze0vGQY
Zizek wrote in support of the white supremacist mob:
http://www.lacan.com/essays/?page_id=454
“there was, in Slovenia, around a year ago, a big problem with a Roma (Gipsy) family which camped close to a small town. When a man was killed in the camp, the people in the town started to protest against the Roma, demanding that they be moved from the camp (which they occupied illegally) to another location, organizing vigilante groups, etc. As expected, all liberals condemned them as racists, locating racism into this isolated small village, while none of the liberals, living comfortably in the big cities, had any everyday contact with the Roma (except for meeting their representatives in front of the TV cameras when they supported them). When the TV interviewed the “racists” from the town, they were clearly seen to be a group of people frightened by the constant fighting and shooting in the Roma camp, by the constant theft of animals from their farms, and by other forms of small harassments from the Roma. It is all too easy to say (as the liberals did) that the Roma way of life is (also) a consequence of the centuries of their exclusion and mistreatment, that the people in the nearby town should also open themselves more to the Roma, etc. – nobody clearly answered the local “racists” [ what they should concretely do to solve the very real problems the Roma camp evidently was for them.”
As you can learn on the video, and here
http://tinyurl.com/239mfc6
Zizek’s version of the story, for a UK audience becoming daily more hostile to “immigrants”, is all lies: no “man was killed”, there was a home not a “camp”, the Strojans’ did not “occupy” their land “illegally”, there was no “constant shooting” or “animal-stealing” and the white mob who terrorised the Strojans were armed racist aggressors not “frightened villagers” at their wit’s end just trying to protect themselves from the violent, murderous, larcenous “Roma way of life”.
So when we get to specifics regarding the “revolutionary violence” Zizek promotes we find nothing glamorous, just ordinary white supremacist mob terrorism like the cross-burning activities of the Klan and blackshirts and brownshirts he so admires. The victims of this violence continue to resist not because of their allegiance to the capitalist ruling class but to prevent the white mobs from burning down their houses with their kids in it etc..
For realms where pogroms cannot so easily be organised, Zizek recommends his fellow white bourgeois men engage in routine sexual harrassment and verbal assault:
http://www.radioopensource.org/slavoj-zizek-what-is-the-question/
To provoke people when I’m asked about racism, I like to do my line I love racism, I can’t imagine my life without racism, there there’s no progressive movement now without racism. I’m not crazy…Now comes the preacher part, the real….what do I mean by this is that there is something false about this respectful multiculturalist tolerance…my God, for me political correctness is still inverted racism…let’s cut the crap, let’s say we want to become friends, there has to be a politically incorrect exchange of obscenity. You know, some dirty joke or whatever, whose meaning is “cut the crap we are now real friends”. And I can tell you this from my wonderful experience here, you want a shocking story you will hear it. How did I become here a friend, a true friend, am not advising anybody to do it because it was a risky gesture, but it worked wonderfully with a -with a -with a black, African-American guy. No? How did I become? We were very friendly, already, but not really, but then I risk and told him, it’s a horrible thing I warn you, is it true that you blacks you know have a big penis, no? but that you can even move it so that if you have on your leg above your knee a fly you can Boff! smash it with your penis. The guy embraced me and told me dying of laughter “now you can call me a nigger.” Like when blacks tell you “you can call me a nigger” means they really accept you no?
Harriet
31 Oct 10 at 10:37 am
Thanks for that Harriet. Is it really a Goebbels quote? God.
I’ve long been suspicious of the way Zizek posits multiculturalism as the hegemonic principle of late capitalism – not to mention the cheap provocations and reversals (“is not the case that this horrifically conservative idea is in fact the MOST RADICAL THING EVER”) – but the thing about the Roma is truly disturbing given what’s happened with that community in Europe (especially Italy) over the last couple years.
I think Zizek’s a stimulating writer a lot of the time, and God knows I read him anticipating I’ll disagree with a fair proportion.. but yeah that’s much uglier than I’d encountered elsewhere.
Queen Emily
31 Oct 10 at 8:20 pm
“Is it really a Goebbels quote? God.” Just part of it. I would say the monsters are tail of Nietzsche stuck on Goebbel’s rebirth routine.
Yes the Strojan’s story is really horrific – that cheering, jeering white mob is really scary, and Zizek’s championing of them is about as far into the open he has allowed his own real politics to go in “the West” (he’s carried away with fury that Sara Ahmed had the temerity to challenge him and grows careless perhaps) – and not unique. Unfortunately Zizek has gotten away with a lot of anti-Roma propagandising and agitating in Slovenia that is little known,
http://www.desk.nl/~pribeziste/svetlana.html
and when known the object of indifference or even secret relish, in AngloAmerican and French academia. He was a major player, the chief ideologist of Slovenia’s ruling party at the time of their ethnic cleansing, which was directed mainly at Roma. Very recently the European Court of Human Rights (COE) issued decisions in cases brought by the victims,
http://tinyurl.com/29v5s4m
For years SZ has worked to make reparations and restitution claims objects of ridicule among the influential culture-producing class who reads him, defining such claims as “victimology” and whining, etc, and portraying some of the better known perpetratos of crimes which have won reparations (fascists and Nazis) as at least bold enough to act though “not violent enough”, but few people in the AngloAmerica academy connect this posturing against plaintiffs and his consistent favouring of powerful inflictors of injuries (he’s lately defending BP) to his stance regarding the reparations and restitution claims brought by the survivors of his party’s racist policies against Slovenia in the courts of international justice. He’s “against human rights” like it’s a cute adolscent reversal of the sort you identify, but he is also “against human rights” in the grimly sincere sense that he is opposed to compensation to the surviving claimants who suffered at the hands of the Slovenian ethnic nationalist seperatists, of which he is one, and their policies of racial population purification.
I wouldn’t want him censored but I hate when he calls himself a leftist and a Marxist without rebuttal, because he’s positively absolutely ignorant of Marx and Marxism and he’s about as “leftist” as petty bourgeois fascism usually is, peddling a discourse that is superficially “anti-bourgeois” but really the politics of resentful patricians and their white male middle class wanabees reinvigorating white supremacist patriarchy, at times in the childishly transparent guise of a “critique” involving ironic over-identification…
anyway, great blog, great discussions here too.
Harriet
1 Nov 10 at 5:23 am