And now, some derp!

In 1869, Sergey Nechayev published The Revolutionary Catechism. It's worth a read, if only for it's general "WTF" factor. It's very clearly based on religious catechisms, outlining the way one should relate to others and society, delineating the purpose of a revolutionary, etc. etc. The sentiment is very real, don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about it's derpitude because I disagree with it. But the near cult-like manner in which the content is approached is more than a little off-putting.

Anyone who knows much about the Bolshevik Party and the appropriation of religious language by the Soviet authorities, however, shouldn't be surprised that the Radical Left in Russia was doing this before the 1870s. Give it a look, if for nothing else, you can judge yourself and your friends on how radical you guys are.

Business Colleges

So I missed Marxism Monday. So sorry, folks! It was a combination of work kicking my ass and not having completed my research on the socialist value equation. It's coming. I swear. Anyway, I wanted to discuss something that every comrade should be aware of, and why it is a pernicious evil that propagates bourgeois sensibility among those that should be our allies but walk away with degrees declaring their status as enemies.

That, dear friends, is the Fisher College of Business, a recent addition to the Ohio State University which served as my alma mater (fucking Buckeyes....). Now, when I say it's recent, I mean it is one of the most recent additions to the University's curricula, not that it was added in the past ten years. Fisher has been in the business of doing business for some time, and paired with the football team, makes quite a bit of money for a University that no longer has education or academics as its core focus.

The presence of a Business College is a pernicious stain on any University campus. The terminology used by people who attend it are especially telling. Engineering, physics, linguistics, statistics, biology, anthropology, gender-studies, etc. are all academic disciplines. They are not something one can commoditize. With my degree in Russian, with a strong emphasis on culture (I like to think of myself as a linguist and anthropologist, but I digress), I cannot simply set up shop and sell my services in these areas to the general population. This is not a practical degree, nor was it ever intended to be. No University has ever concerned itself with practical application of its curricula. You go to a University to learn how to think critically in a particular field to further the sum total of human knowledge and understanding. This is not practical. This is all speculative and theoretical. Are there some degrees (Engineering, biochemistry, etc.) that have practical applications? Absolutely. But one is also providing a service to their academic field and future students in the same field.

The Business College is absolutely exempt from this reality. For centuries, one became a businessman by engaging in business and learning it as one would a trade--hands on. Today, the principles of business management remain very much the same as they always have. Ensure your supply is equal to your demand, pay a fair wage, ensure decent human resources access, and adapt your business model to changes in business climate to ensure you stay in business. This is a trade, not a speculative field of research. "Research" projects in Business Colleges amount to "how I would set up my business" and ensure one has read the material. They do not, however, offer valuable insights into the way one might do business in the future. And why is this the case if they are part of the family of highly speculative and forward-thinking curricula that make up the rest of the University syllabus? Because Business Colleges do not exist to promote freedom of thought, nor do they exist to contribute to the larger body of human knowledge. They exist to indoctrinate and propagandize those that walk their hallowed halls. They exist to shame the rest of the speculative fields being heavily invested in, and showing the University that THEY bring in business. THEY capitalize themselves. THEY are superior to all other fields of knowledge.

Remember what I said about how Business College attendees have a particular vocabulary? This is their vocabulary. They frame themselves in the context of the social construct that is the perceived prestige of attending an academic institution, but they themselves are not engaged in any way with academia outside academic requisites set by the University as terms of one's graduation.

But, here, also is a major issue with the decades-long legacy of the Business College. You do not attend a University and look at its job-placement rate. To engage in academia is the quiet acceptance that, while a practical job outside academia might exist for you, your ultimate career path is to remain in academia. Academics are people who never leave school. Business College graduates, however, have no choice. For them, the job-placement rate is tantamount to the academic's search for accreditation. So an already-large University like Ohio State can attract more money through more students by investing heavily in a Business College...and then watching as the social construct is reformed to glorify it and measure the rest of the University in the same terms.

The Business College is not an academic institution, so framing the debate on the humanities, arts and sciences, etc. in the terms of the Business College is disingenuous. A Business College has no place at an academic institution because it helps engender and indoctrinate people who do not even attend it. Academics ARE the vanguard of the revolution. Academics ARE the professional revolutionaries, because they have the time and energy to study and pursue further study. But the Business College prevents academics from joining the revolution because they become adherents to the propaganda of the Koch Brothers and McGraw Hill. Everyone, even in the Humanities, starts chasing that dollar sign and the entire premise of academia is undermined.

But when everyone is a business man and the economic collapses out from underneath them, where will their practical degree get them? Money can't really feed you, but I'm sure the embossing on your "university" degree will add some texture to that delicious business salad.

Fresh Friday #3

I was reviewing some of my recent posts and realized I haven't really addressed any strategies for a United Left outside of a call for Evangelistic Marxism. So I wanted a return to this concern since that is, after all, the modus operandi of the blog. So I will be talking about sectarianism within the American Left (and the Left in general), and how we can address these problems.

On Uniting the Left: Socialism Without Adjectives
-E.M. Diderot

My Comrade, Jack, posted on Facebook yesterday "Socialism without adjectives". It sparked a few tongue-in-cheek responses including my personal favorite: "Sentences without adjectives or verbs." But the sentiment is very real. Another Comrade, Chris, has been posting lately on the Anarchists, with whom the radical left on Facebook recently spontaneously and (nearly) unanimously declared solidarity over the Anarchist Memes fiasco, and their absolute refusal to accept our solidarity. I have to say the level of despair he is proclaiming is not unique to him. There is a reason I have stopped actively engaging the AnCaps on the usurper AM page. There is a reason many of my Comrades have dropped the offensive. But then, in a Facebook group whose aim is the discussion of radical Communist theory in general, on the same day as all this, a post was made asking which Leftists would we be unwilling to work with in a revolutionary group.

Three independent individuals, posting at different times in different places with different intentions, all in one day, underlining the ever-present snake that is Leftist sectarianism. And it really made me think about what "Socialism without adjectives" and the concept of a "United Left" really mean.

For starters, "Socialism without adjectives" is simply that. It is sort of a declaration similar to non-denominational Christianity. You are declaring your adherence to a particular ideology and its particular set of principles without any further qualifiers or modifications. So adjectiveless Socialism would necessarily argue for (in general) the following:

• The abolition of capital;
• The emancipation of labor;
• The full democratization of political power; and
• The full equity of social relations.

Sounds nice, right? Well, the definitions of each bullet point, how they relate to class struggle, and how they are best to be accomplished are what causes sectarianism among the Left. So it's really a lot harder than it looks to nail down what the basic tenets of a United Left or "Socialism without adjectives" should look like. But it's a place to start. That being said, using those (highly simplified) bullet points, we can very quickly throw out a few groups as NOT being amenable to a United Left or belonging to an adjectiveless Socialism. These even came up in the post about who you wouldn't work with:

• Liberals; they support operation within the current system which is opposed to the abolition of capital and the full democratization of political power--we cannot consider them as being on the Left.
• Stalinists; my understanding of Stalinism and its modern adherents is that the full equity of social relations and the full democratization of political power are questioned if not outright denied--no matter how "Left" they are, we cannot consider them Socialists

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones who most readily come to mind. This is the first restriction on the definition of a United Left in this country, that not all who lay claim to the Left can be considered allies in the sense of pursuing class struggle to its inevitably revolutionary end. Hal Draper discusses this trend in his 1948 critique of Neo-Stalinists, and he is far less forgiving than I am in his treatment of whether or not they can claim to be "socialist". 

As far as the Anarchists who refused our solidarity and openly mocked it, challenging us on the merits of Marxism rather than the merits of unity and solidarity, it is the question of the third bullet that truly divides us from them: what, in a post-revolutionary society, would the full democratization of political power look like? They advocate for the complete abolition of a state apparatus upon the success of the revolution, while we (generally) advocate for a new kind of people's or worker's state. This is the rub of it. Ergo, because Anarchists do not represent a wide spectrum of the Left, a United Left can only be considered as such insofar as it unites and brings together various groups of a Marxist, Socialist, Communist variety. Anarchists can and should be admitted so long as the question of unity and solidarity trumps sectarian division on the question of the existence of the state, and we should openly support Anarchist groups and declare our solidarity with them, but in the actual formation of a United Left it is unfathomable to recommend full agency to Anarchism precisely because the definition of the state would be enough for schism.

It is an unfortunate reality that a United Left must necessarily recognize that certain groups that are historically on the Left or historically claim membership among the Left would be detrimental to a wider united front. But if we do not address these questions now, it would become harder later on to address them and address them effectively. Council Communism, Party Vanguardism, Democratic Centralism, etc. can all vie for prominence among the membership of a United Left because they all agree on the basic idea that a state apparatus in some form would exist post-revolution. But because Anarchists do not agree, these other strains would not even be able to vie for influence because the question of "state? yes or no?" would dominate everything else.

The DNA of a United Left is to be decided upon what we on the Left can agree upon in general without relying on specific definitions. This rather exoteric approach to Marxism, a self-described scientific dialectical theory, has its issues, and problems most definitely would arise from it. But far from attempting a dogmatic orthodoxy of Marxism, it is a framework in which vibrant heterodoxies can flourish and challenge each other, urging a dialectical synthesis of Marxist formulations. Without insisting on a rigid, disciplined orthodoxy, a United Left could potentially be a formidable force. It is simply a matter of finding the platforms upon which we all in general agree, which is, of course, no simple matter at all.

Theory Thursday #2

This week's Theory Thursday is the first bite into Marxist Feminism for us. As promised, we are following the list of texts presented by Draper/Lipow in their critique, "Marxist Women vs. Liberal Feminism". Their first text is a decent introduction to Marxist Feminism, a selection from August Bebel's "Woman and Socialism", written in 1879. The selection is entitled "The Enemy Sisters" and is an historical look into the development of separate Liberal and Marxist ideas on Feminism, and a good introduction to why the distinction is important.

To begin, it is important to recognize that, at the time Bebel was writing, the terms "feminism" and "feminist", when used at all, in general applied to what we would call "Liberal Feminism", since feminism as a movement had not really developed. The German term "Frauenrechtlerinnen" is utilized, instead, by those early Marxist Feminists, Clara Zetkin, August Bebel, and Rosa Luxemburg, to describe their Liberal opponents. Draper translates it as "women's-rightsters" and claims that "Liberal Feminist" isn't exactly a proper translation. I have used it primarily because a study of these early "women's-rightsters" shows that their program translated into Liberal Feminism as it matured. So, for economy of language and ease of readability, I use Liberal Feminism to describe the Frauenrechtlerinnen and modern Liberal Feminists.

The selection chosen by Draper opens with a stark accusation: legislative equality under the juridical domain does not undermine the very real exploitation of women at the hands of their husbands within the confines of the nuclear family:

"If we assume the case, which is certainly not impossible, that the representatives of the bourgeois women’s movement achieve all their demands for equal rights with men, this would not entail the abolition of the slavery that present-day marriage means for countless women, nor of prostitution, nor of the material dependence of the great majority of married women on their husbands. Also, for the great majority of women it makes no difference if some thousands or tens of thousands of their sisters who belong to the more favourably situated ranks of society succeed in attaining a superior profession or medical practice or some scientific or official career, for nothing is thereby changed in the overall situation of the sex as a whole."

This is really the core of the difference between Liberal Feminists and Marxist Feminists. In the Nineteenth Century in which Bebel was writing Liberal Feminism was principally concerned with the position of women in only a juridical sense. Bebel thereafter explains that juridical concerns can ameliorate this condition in which women find themselves, but cannot emancipate women fully, and that a full revolution in women's social and material conditions is necessary to accomplish this. It is this question of material conditions that differentiates Liberal and Marxist Feminism (and really Marxism, in general, from other political philosophies), as Bebel believes juridical equality does not guarantee social and material well-being.

"Hence it follows that all women – regardless of their position in society, as a sex that has been oppressed, ruled, and wronged by men throughout the course of development of our culture – have the common interest of doing away with this situation and of fighting to change it, insofar as it can be changed through changes in laws and institutions within the framework of the existing political and social order. But the huge majority of women are also most keenly interested in something more: in transforming the existing political and social order from the ground up, in order to abolish both wage-slavery, which afaicts [sic] the female proletariat most heavily, and sex-slavery, which is very intimately bound up with our property and employment conditions."

Here, now, having established that a focus on juridical versus material conditions is what divides a Liberal Feminist outlook from a Marxist Feminist outlook, Bebel makes a startling synthesis, that Liberal Feminism is, ultimately, a philosophical position held by women of privilege in opposition to proletarian women, making the stark class divide at the core of Marxist agitation apparent within Feminism.

"The preponderant portion of the women in the bourgeois women’s movement do not comprehend the necessity of such a radical transformation. Under the influence of their privileged position in society, they see in the more far-reaching movement of the proletarian women dangerous and often detestable aspirations that they have to fight. The class antagonism that yawns like a gulf between the capitalist class and the working class in the general social movement, and that keeps on getting sharper and harsher with the sharpening of our societal relations, also makes its appearance inside the women’s movement and finds its fitting expression in the goals they adopt and the way they behave."

He demands, therefore, that, though it is necessary to achieve juridical and social equality in all things, it is imperative to go beyond that and he intimately links the "woman question" to the "social question" and views their solutions as one and the same.

"It is therefore a question not only of achieving equality of rights between men and women on the basis of the existing political and social order, which is the goal set by the bourgeois women’s-rightsers, but of going beyond that goal and abolishing all the barriers that make one human being dependent on another and therefore one sex on another. This resolution of the woman question therefore coincides completely with the resolution of the social question."

This is also the core difference between Liberal Feminists and Marxist Feminists, today. Despite a shift from a juridical to a socio-cultural focus in modern Liberal Feminism, Liberal Feminism still insists on operating within the social and political framework of the present-day system. A cursory glance at the opponents of women's equality shows that the Republican War on Women is being led by relatively young men such as Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. Socially, the emergence of the "nice guy", awash in Ax body spray, fedoras, and the shame of the "friendzone", and the unofficially-sanctioned rape culture of high school boys and college fraternity members shows how fragile this sort of focus really is. Truly, Bebel's conclusion that the solution to the "woman question" is the same as the social question carries a great amount of gravity with it--a juridical solution to one as necessitated by a lack of juridical protection does not solve or balance the equation. A juridical solution is a necessary component, and we should support juridical measures to support and liberate women, but it is not sufficient. And this is why Marxist Feminism should be pursued, revived, and expanded. It is also why Bebel declares his solidarity with the Social-Democratic Party of his day, because

"[T]he Social-Democratic Party is the only one that has included in its programme the complete equality of women and their liberation from every form of dependence and oppression, not on grounds of propaganda but out of necessity, on grounds of principle. There can be no liberation of humanity without the social independence and equal rights of both sexes."

 In other words, there is no women's liberation without social liberation, and social independence and juridical equality of both men and women is necessary for the whole of humanity to be liberated.

Next week, we will be discussing Clara Zetkin's pamphlet "Proletarian Women and Socialist Revolution". Having a basis in the foundation of Marxist Feminism, we can move on to the practical concerns of one of Marxism's most vocal and influential feminists and her address to the Gotha Congress.

Net Neutrality is Dead

Net Neutrality is dead. Links! Love 'em. So yeah. What happened?

The FCC tried to enforce net neutrality. Verizon said "your administrative oversight doesn't apply to us as broadband providers." A US District court said Verizon was right.

...

...

A telecommunications company...under the regulatory oversight of the FCC...is providing broadband service...which is also under the regulatory oversight of the FCC...is arguing that as providers (under FCC regulatory oversight) providing a service (under FCC regulatory oversight) are not under FCC regulatory oversight...and a Federal court agrees with them.

...

...

The fuck?

Anyway, this isn't about the FCC or Verizon. This is about how the death of net neutrality affects our efforts as Marxists. Obviously, this can get into martyr complexes and conspiracy theories very easily, so let's try and keep out of that territory. But if you recall that Facebook already provides preferential treatment to particular political viewpoints, it's not that hard to surmise that internet providers, more necessary to our daily functioning than Facebook, would do the same.

The internet has provided unprecedented ability for revolutionary movements and Leftists to network and organize. Net Neutrality has been one of our lines of defense that we have probably taken for granted. I know the AnCaps would respond to this by screaming "Statism! The State has no business on the internet!  Bwaaah! Free Markets!", but we on the Left should have a more nuanced response. AnCom or not, the Left at least explores its options and talks rationally.

The state, whether serving only the interests of the ruling class or not, has an agenda. At its core, that agenda is existential. The state propagates itself. This is fine. This is the nature of the state. As a "statist", I see no problem with a state safeguarding its interests. But when those interests aren't really the state's interests, but corporate interests, I have a serious issue with a Federal court defending a private corporation's interests over those of the state. Because, as is pointed out in the New Yorker article linked above, this opens the doorway for internet providers to severely limit access to particular websites, blogs, etc. While the New Yorker talks about competing firms, what if, say, Verizon decided because they were no longer in charge of the ACA's healthcare exchanges they wanted to degrade access to healthcare.gov?

Under this ruling, that would be potentially legal.

So, it is extrapolated that, should the Left unite and pose an existential threat to any one or all of the major telecommunications companies that provide internet service to millions of Americans, it would follow that our blogs, websites, news outlets, organizations, etc. would lose our internet presence. It would severely cripple our ability to organize and effectively agitate outside of peer-to-peer personal interaction. The election of Councilwoman Kshama Sawant would have been intensely more difficult were she to have lost her internet presence prior to the campaign.

What are we, then, to do? The most direct action is what liberals often do--petition, petition, petition. Failing that, more direct activism and action is needed. Should we drive ourselves into the Dark Web--the fabled depths of the internet where the Silk Road and Bitcoin dwelt? Or should we defiantly stake our claim here, on the surface, and continue as we have? I don't really have answers for this except that more than ever we need to unite behind a common banner and organization so we can more actively oppose actions like this. To fail to do so will allow this potentially existential threat to materialize more fully and more threateningly. With the United Left blog barely a month old, it seems like bad timing, eh?

Hunt the Bourgeoisie

Some of you may have seen this already floating around Facebook:

It's a picture of some asshole bourgeois fuck with a dead African Black Rhino. I will let the text provided by International Animal Rescue Foundation World Action South Africa on their Facebook page tell you what's going on:

On January 11, 2014 at the Dallas Convention Center in Dallas, Texas, they will be auctioning the rights to kill and endangered Black rhinoceros and are declaring this hunt a "heroic conservation" effort, the Dallas Safari Club and its supporters are attempting to deceive a gullible public into believing this hunt isn't simply the slaughter of a rare species of rhino.  

We'll be monitoring DSC so called conservation funding and just how many "thousands" of Rhino this money made from the auction will make. Lastly but not least we are annoyed that a plane load of South African hunters traveled to America of which it has been noted (name left out) one particular South African will be bidding at the auction to take down this Rhinoceros.

According to Louisiana conservation attorney John J. Jackson, who said he’s been working on the auction project with federal wildlife officials, the hunt will involve one of five black rhinos selected by a committee and approved by the Namibian government. The five are to be older males, incapable of reproducing and likely “troublemakers … bad guys that are killing other rhinos,” he said. 

These animals are farm-raised around humans and cared for by humans only to be killed by rich hunters in what has been coined as “canned hunts.” This is simply a method that allows them to farm more for harvesting later.

This auction is nothing more than abuse of Africa’s natural resources to the highest bidder. No ethical or moral motive drives the hunt club’s actions. What DSC touts as conservation, we label destruction of a nation.

The DSC lawyer’s statements are shockingly arrogant and factually incorrect. “This is advanced, state-of-the-art wildlife conservation and management techniques,” Jackson, a Metairie, La.-based international wildlife attorney, said Wednesday. “It’s not something the layman understands, but they should. This is the most sophisticated management strategy devised,” he said. “The conservation hunt is a hero in the hunting community.” 

Yes he is correct–the hunt may be a hero in the hunting community. But it has no conservation value other than the additional killing of rhinoceros and other species by rich Americans. This guise of “conservation” is not new but seems to be the only justification the group has. 

The individuals who participate in these hunts are rich Americans and Germans-typically millionaires who could very simply donate towards the care and keeping of endangered species rather than killing them. If this club wants to be seen as ‘heroes,’ and it has such a concern for conservation, it could easily petition its rich members to save these animals by donating money, to be used towards conserving the species. 

So we continue to ask–how is handing over a sum of money for the rights to kill an animal that is nearly extinct the most sophisticated management strategy, when most South African countries are banning Trophy Hunting? 

We had to somewhat laugh when reading this statement below made by many hunters internationally and within OUR rainbow nation. 

We thank God everyday of our lives for the splendour and the beauty of our precious dark continent, called Africa! We are proud to be hunters, were taught to protect, to cherish, to love and to savour the beauty of God’s creation. We sow more than we harvest, invest more than we take, and develop more than there ever used to be. We use hunting as our ‘paypal’, for conserving, protecting and developing our natural resources. 

“Real Hunters know this, if we don’t plow back, develop, protect and invest in, we will not have a better tomorrow”. 

It will be lost to our grandchildren, the generations to follow, and all this, because of man’s greed… 

Take time to digest this please. In the mean time the "problem child" will end up looking like this.

There are no words for this except maybe "Hunt the Bourgeoisie."

Update: The winner of the DSC auction stepped forward. His name is Cory Knowlton and he is a despicable bastard. I presume he also won an entry into "The Most Dangerous Game" as a contestant, not a hunter.

Land Appropriations and Collectivization At Your Service!

So I just hopped on to share a news item with everybody, concerning the ongoing land appropriations in Venezuela for conversion into small-scale collectives, cooperatives, etc. to ensure that the Revolution is capable of providing 100% food sustainability for the country. But I found that in under a month I had hit 200 page views! Yay! Thanks guys! In the famous words of me: "I'm gettin' famous!"

Not really. But thank you all for at least taking the time to glance at things. =D

Anyway, Venezuela is expanding its land appropriations initiated by Hugo Chavez under the National Land Institute (INTI), which aims to reclaim land held by vast private estates and hand them over to the campesinos. While the opposition has said this project is an abject failure, the article points out that statistics show it has, indeed, increased over all crop-yield. In addition to this, the campesinos are preparing their first national congress to address the role of the campesinos in social change. This is Marxism in action--a unification between the laborer's occupation and reclamation of the means of production as well as their organization into political bodies.

What does this mean for the American Left? While most farms in the United States are privately owned and operated by family members, what this shows is that schemes of productive appropriations are possible and effective. It could be along the lines of employees of a major restaurant chain slowly gaining complete control over voting rights in the board of directors over a period of a few years. Facilities or policy organs within corporations could be slowly transitioned into union control. While violent revolution is the quickest way to get things in the hands of the people, the soft approach is also definitely workable in a more pluralistic society. Anyway, short post today. See you all on Thursday!

Viva Venezuela!

Marxism Monday #2: Labor value

Marxism Monday is brought to you today by the letters S&P, for Standard and Poor! Standard and Poor is a financial services company that is a subsidiary of McGraw Hill Financial (who also owns that textbook publishing company...just so you know). They publish market and financial research and their indices track stock health and overall financial and economic health. They're also one of the international credit ratings agencies. So, why is Marxism Monday brought to you by one of the most influential Capitalist organizations in the world? Because of this:

Do you notice anything about those dips? They correspond with the two most recent major sector collapses in the world economy. The first was the general economic downturn after the dot-com bubble collapsed and 9/11 shut down trade and consumer confidence (says Liberals and Capitalists), and the second is the occurrence of the housing bubble collapse and the banking sector collapse in rapid succession of one another. But what precedes both of them are unparalleled periods of growth. Seriously. Go to Google right now and type in "INDEXSP:INX" and it will give you the same page. Expand out the window. This rate of growth is ludicrous. Do you see how close that line is to the bottom before 1995? And look at the far right where it is now at the dawn of 2014.

A much more detailed analysis of economic activity would be necessary to explain fully these massive gains in the S&P 500 (S&P's American index) during periods when real wages are falling drastically against inflation and jobless numbers are down simply because people have stopped looking for work or jobless benefits have been cut. But what these graphs parallel is the state of the worker in relation to industry in Capital, Marx's seminal work. In "Outline and Criticism of Communist Theory from Marx to Mao", James J. O'Donnell explains it simply:

[T]he laborer is himself treated by the bourgeoisie as a commodity, and thus receives only the equivalent of the amount of labor that has been expended in producing him, that is, his subsistence...A laborer earning a daily wage of eight dollars might complete eight dollars' worth of work in three hours. If he works an eight-hour day then the additional five hours represents surplus value. Marx defines surplus value as the difference between the sale price and the worker's wages. It is something actually created by labor but appropriated arbitrarily by employers. (27)

This labor-value appropriation is very apparent when one looks at the above graph in relation to the state of workers in this country and Europe and even in China today. Record profits, record CEO bonuses, record growth in stock markets, etc. Yet real wages are in free fall. Rents and the price of food (specifically milk and eggs, the real measure of the health of the economy) are rising. West Virginia's coal mines are literally destroying clean drinking water while their CEO and his girlfriend laugh. The situation in the United States, specifically, is one in which Capitalists have already begun reaping their rewards for undermining business and banking regulations put in place due to the Great Depression. The worker is finding himself commoditized in ways unheard of since the 1920's. Though not as bad, things are certainly setting themselves up to be possibly much worse. Not only that, but the state and Federal Reserve Bank have run out of ideas on how to fix the problem.

Quantitative Easing didn't work. Letting the market collapse didn't work. Intervention didn't work. Non-intervention didn't work. These are the two strategies our government seems to think are the only viable options. Marxism says there is another option.

Marx posits that when workers control and collectively own the means of production, there is no Capitalist to arbitrarily appropriate the added labor-value contributed by the worker. Therefore, a greater portion of the final price of the commodity can be appropriated to the worker's wages. With rules in place (or psychological barriers, but that is a topic for Marketing Mondays...on another blog) to keep commodity prices from artificially inflating, consumer confidence returns. And Socialist or Capitalist, consumer confidence is important because it means 1) items are available to buy, and 2) they are being bought. Say what you will about consumerism (it's bad), any economy that still utilizes a currency relies on consumer confidence. Unless we're talking about Owenites, and I don't think we are, this holds true for most transitional Socialist societies as well. Ask Slavenka Drakulic, in her book "How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed". She says the reason Communism failed was because they did not produce enough tampons--her metaphor for consumer goods. And really, this is a common complaint from the former Soviet Bloc: everyone had plenty of money, but they were still standing in line for bread.

But, I'm in danger of veering off into tangential history. The point of this Marxism Monday can be summed up very briefly:

The price of any item is composed of three things: 1) the cost of initial goods to make the item, 2) the added labor value imparted by the worker, 3) profit. Labor value is calculated (according to Marx) as the difference between the sale cost of an item and the initial cost to make the item. The allocation of profit in Capitalism is arbitrarily done according to the individual desires of the Capitalist. The allocation of profit in Communism is intentionally done according to the collective needs of the workers. Arbitrary appropriation of labor value results in volatile markets, uncontrollable collapses, and vast increases in financial indices simultaneously alongside freefalling real wages, dangerously-high inflation, and uncontrollable cost-of-living increases. Intentional appropriation of labor value helps fix the market, ensure high standards of living, and overall economic health.

Now, this does raise a valid question, and one that has been alternately taken seriously and generously dismissed by Marxists and Capitalists, alike: that of the Socialist "value calculation"--that without a free and competitive market, how would economic value and item price be determined? Understanding the abstracted idea of what composes a "price" according to Marx, we will look into this next week on Marxism Monday.

Anarchist Memes is now pro-Capital! Wait what?

As reported at CounterPunch, one of the most stalwart anti-Capitalist pages on Facebook, Anarchist Memes (I've linked you to the current iteration), was taken down Thursday January 9, 2014. I won't get into the story of that, as CounterPunch does so fantastically. But what is of particular interest is that the same day another page was started with the same name, the same (mostly) logo, and the same approach to political graphics and propaganda. Yup. There's another Anarchist Memes page, but they have nothing to do with Anarchism at all. They're AnCaps. And if you click on the links you'll see that the same logo is being used, only the latter has changed the flags to yellow. Bright, happy, yellow flags denoting their devotion to Capitalism.

I saw that and felt like I had just gotten punched in the dick about thirty times. In terms of sensibility and common decency, the creation of this new group is a direct attack against the very active and formidably-mobile Left. Over the past several years, the very real and very dangerous ideologies of the extreme right have been targets of coordinated attacks by groups on the social network. Leftist groups have dismantled arguments by voluntaryists, free-market ideologues, and everybody else who falls under the AnCap umbrella (though, like hipsters, we're all aware of how vehemently they all deny being AnCaps). While they have ventured into our territory a number of times, their arguments are quickly shredded and they leave claiming the "I never cared to begin with" card or just up and quit. This, however, is a direct appropriation of ideas, images, and intellectual property from their ideological opponents.

Now, I'm not saying we should fall to pieces over an internet pissing contest. Honestly, what good is happening in the world by us fixating on these Facebook-based ideological wars? In terms of real human terms, such as lifting people out of poverty, asserting the rights of labor over the rights of capital, etc., these Facebook wars do nothing. But, knowing Facebook's attitude towards the far left, this type of appropriation stings deeply. We know that in any battle between the two AM pages, Facebook will ultimately ax the original, the radically left AM instead of the radically right AM. We know this to be true, and so the existence of the usurper represents an existential threat to one of the most vibrant and well-managed anarchist communities on Facebook.

This is a threat that must be answered according to the strictest code of solidarity. Yes, we've seen the way Anarchists attack Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyites, etc. We know that Anarchists are just as sectarian as we are. But to stand silently while this battle rages only means it will be that much harder the next time this happens. And the next, and the next. Always remember Niemoeller's poem, "First they came..."

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
This is the environment in which we are finding ourselves. Because of this, we must be willing to defend each other in the face of a reactionary right that fancies itself "humane", but laughs as the left is torn to shreds in the name of "Community Standards". They can have their misogyny, their racism, their classism, their homophobia, and their Islamophobia. This is something we know that Facebook will not remove. But our existence and are goals are made easier, more evangelistic, more attainable by being allowed to speak on a social network that has defined the dominant social paradigm of our age. When they take this away from us because we cannot unite in the name of solidarity, the fight will be the same fight we were undertaking in the 1980's and '90s, and the Left's crisis of relevance will be magnified a thousand fold.

This is why the usurped AnCap page is so important. This is why our petty arguments on Facebook are important. This is why solidarity is important.

Fresh Friday #2

Happy Friday! It also happens to be my sister's birthday today, so I'm getting jazzed up to celebrate with her on Sunday (we all work too much). That being said, let us engage in some new ideas.

I had originally had a lot of trouble thinking up what I was going to discuss today. I had tried culling some articles from my collection, trying to rehash some theories and ask some questions, but then something happened that sparked my curiosity, and at the same time allows me to refer back to Fresh Friday #1, on Evangelical Marxism. So, on to Fresh Friday #2:

On the Integration of Social Media in Party Organization
-E.M. Diderot

It is the prerogative of any Marxist organization to administer its business according to their own rubrics. If this is according to Lenin's Democratic Centralism, or total political democratization, it is the prerogative of the organization to choose its means of administration. Just as any revolution will look different based on the socio-political context of the revolution, so will any organization's administration look different based on the same contextual concerns. This, however, has its limits when it comes to strategy and evangelization of the organization.

At its core, the mission of the organization should be twofold: the ultimate usurpation of the state and fundamental restructuring of society to rid the state and the workers of the parasitic bourgeoisie, and the protracted working goal of evangelization. The state cannot be usurped with a minority or else this would constitute a coup and in no way represent a revolutionary social shift as is necessary for the building of Socialism. It must be attained through protracted class struggle by a violently conscious working class. The only way to attain that level of class consciousness is through the twofold approach of education and integration. All other short-term working goals are subordinated to this one--of expanding the organization and invigorating it with new blood.

As part of an evangelical approach to Marxism, it is imperative that any tool that allows a Marxist organization to reach as many people as possible be utilized. Social media has given us unprecedented ability to do this, even as Facebook attempts to shut down anti-Capitalist, Feminist, LGBTQ, non-heteronormative, etc. pages while defending heteronormative, anti-Feminist, pro-Capitalist pages. Facebook is a tool that must be recognized for what it is: a way to coordinate and attract like-minded comrades from every corner of the globe. It is also a way to establish coordination networks for local actions off of Facebook, since the network records what you DON'T share, and has the potential to start recording what you do. Despite this, the administration coteries of several Communist, Anarcho-Syndicalist/Communist, Socialist, etc. groups make it a point that only people who are known outside of the network in real life (IRL was an acronym I hadn't seen for awhile...ahh nostalgia!) are to be considered for administration positions.

While laudable since it is a way to verify the intentions, history, and credibility of a potential admin, it is severely limiting and self-defeating. If one's purpose is to build a loyal organizational base administered only by people you know in person, it is far easier and more sensible to do it the old fashioned way out of a basement somewhere and shun the social networking. It means that no matter how the evangelization of Marxism effects the membership of your organization, if there is no prospect for their advancement because you do not know them personally outside the online face of the organization, they might as well not exist, and your membership numbers should be revised to reflect that only the administrative core exists as members.

Instead, any evangelical approach to Marxism must recognize that we all exist outside of the internet. And while this does not mean everyone who joins up on your Facebook page must be guaranteed administrative access, it means the requirements and rubrics by which administrative promotion is done must be revised. Contributions to the organization via news items, reports about activities of enemy organizations (AnCaps, anti-Feminists, etc.), conversational contributions, and extra-organizational contributions via publications and direct actions should be weighed against the requirements to be given administrative access.

Why is this so important? Because, believe it or not, genuine Left organizations do not exist in all areas. Just as any revolution will take on different forms in different climes, and any organization will take on different forms in different settings, Leftists take on different forms in different conditions. The Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA are all Social Democrats and do not represent the political Left in any meaningful sense. American trade unions are mere tools for the further exploitation of their membership by Capitalists, and grassroots Leftist organizations are very easily co-opted by well-intentioned but poorly-educated Liberals. So, in many places, devoted comrades do not have access to other comrades and organizations. If we are to overcome Communism's crisis of relevance in a post-industrial, service-oriented economic environment, we must use the tools available to us in every instance to spread Marxism, raise class consciousness, and secure the revolution. We cannot rely on the operational strategies of the 1880's, 1910's, 1950's, or even the 1980's. In the Twenty-First Century, at the dawn of 2014, our methods and strategies must reflect the technological changes that have occurred in the almost 140 years of Marxist history. If we fail to do so we will die, and the world will die with us.

Theory Thursday #1

Originally my Theory Thursday #1 post included a very lengthy (and at times, wandering) analysis of Hal Draper's and Anne Lipow's introduction for a collection of texts they title "Marxist Women vs. Bourgeois Feminism" (1976). In the course of writing this post, I also had the chance to run several items in it by comrades within and without Marxist circles at the same time. A lot of arguments were put forth that I had to think about and a lot of concerns that developed because of it. So I am changing tactics. I would still like to draw on Draper/Lipow, especially considering their discussion includes works of such seminal Marxist Feminists as Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg, and Eleanor Marx (the full introduction and list is here), but it is more important now to simply address the question of Marxist Feminism in general. Why have I reasoned this?

My original post blatantly and routinely attacked core problems in Liberal Feminism perceived as parallels addressed in attacks by Zetkin, et. al. in the 1880's in Germany. Why is this a problem? What would you think would be the response of any woman who is conscious of her feminism to a man telling her why Liberal Feminism is wrong? It would appear to be the same idea as any man or men trying to co-opt feminism for their own ends and telling women why they should let men co-opt it. So, even without publishing that first draft, I would like to extend an apology to all women, feminist or not, that my original intention was blind to what would be termed my male privilege. I am sorry that my intention would have offended you. Let me instead try and present arguments by Marxist Feminists that will be there for your consideration, and maybe we can talk about it over coffee some time. I like coffee.

ONWARD!

I would like to begin with a clip illustrating some quotes from Clara Zetkin, who founded a socialist women's group in Germany in 1872:

The core of Zetkin's feminism is the same as Marxist Feminism in general. The plight of women and their subsequent lack of equality is inherently the byproduct of the relations of production. When men solely provided for their families, women were subordinate. When industrialization required men and women to work side-by-side, Zetkin argued that women's economic emancipation was complete, and much of this was done without the aide of men and often in opposition to men. But once women's economic emancipation was complete, it was imperative for men and women to work together. For Draper/Lipow, it is summed up rather coherently:

"In the Marxist perspective, the entrance of women into industry was not itself the solution; it merely posed the right questions for solution. It provided the necessary starting-point for struggle. The struggle had to include a fight against the abuses of female labour along with other workingclass struggles. Once one saw the female half of the human race as an integral part of the great social struggle, everything else followed. [The] Marxists' approach pointed...to the integration of women into every aspect of the social struggle, including the political."

This is the most succinct discussion of Marxist Feminism that I have come across. Women and men do not stand in opposition (or should not, at any rate), and should be fully integrated in every aspect of the social struggle. Going back to Zetkin, this denies a focus on women's roles and rights in a purely juridical sense and explains Zetkin's, Marx's, and Luxemburg's open hostility towards "Bourgeois Feminism" (what we would call Liberal Feminism, today), which sought and continues to seek an active legislative solution--something Marxist Feminism denies as being effective.

The alternative to focusing on the status of women in a purely juridical sense is focusing on the status of women in a revolutionary sense. It is not enough to take the present system, says the Marxist Feminist, and enact laws and reforms that protect women from the internal machinations of Capitalist society that seek to undermine the emancipation of women. It is necessary to force the capitulation of Capitalism so that Socialism can replace it to guarantee the emancipation of women in a classless society, since their subordination stems directly from economic exploitation and class antagonism. The logic here is that juridical reforms can be taken away, whereas a truly revolutionary social shift cannot be so easily undone.

As an illustration of this thinking at work, one can praise the hundred plus years of feminist gains in the United States. But if a juridical approach was sufficient to changing culture, the Republican War on Women should be spearheaded by men who came of age during, before, or shortly after Roe v. Wade, or those men who spearheaded the offensive that helped derail and ultimately defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. But it isn't. The War on Women is being led by the youngest members in the Republican caucus. It is being headed by the likes of Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. Yes, men like Todd Akin and Rush Limbaugh have come out as openly misogynistic, but all they do is add "tradition" and "moral support" to the young blood leading the charge. The past couple of years, reproductive rights restrictions in the United States have outstripped the restrictions passed in the past several decades combined. In this instance, at the very least, Marxist Feminism says the juridical focus is misapplied and is not working.

So what is the solution? Over the next few weeks I will be discussing the list of works in Draper/Lipow's "Marxist Women vs. Bourgeois Feminism". While much of this work lies in the canon of Marxist Feminist theory as having built the foundation of the theory 130 years ago, I posit that its age is not an issue since the problems they address are still problems today. To understand Feminism, one needs to understand its origins. Likewise, to understand Marxist Feminism, one needs to understand its origins among early revolutionary Marxists.

Iraq: Post-Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism

I saw a wonderful article on Global Post today that just says Iraq is a mess. Seriously. That's what their Facebook status update said about the article. "Iraq is a mess." Nothing else, nothing more. The liberal press is even losing any and all interest in a part of the world that the West has intentionally and routinely fucked up. What is the article about? Fallujah is in the hands of Islamists, and Iraqi security forces are preparing to retake it. Woo. Fucking. Hoo. That's the same story that's been coming out of Iraq since the war started. But, the narrative between liberals and conservatives is the same. One side will say "Iraq needs more security!" the other will say "Iraq needs self-government!" and sometimes they agree and sometimes they flip back and forth, but generally both sides fundamentally miss the point. What Iraq needs is to never have existed at all.

The modern state of Iraq is an amalgamation of territories formerly held by the Ottoman Empire. Various kingdoms have occupied the area and ruled from Baghdad or Mosul, but the region has always been pretty stable. Under the Ottoman Bey system local rulers were allowed to govern how they wanted so long as they paid tribute and maintained allegiance to the Ottoman Sultan. Then WWI happens, the Ottoman Empire is dissolved, the Young Turks create a Turkish Republic, and Britain gets control of "Iraq". As was a popular past time of European powers of the period, the British elevated one group of people to rule over everyone else, exacerbated inter-tribal differences, stoked the flames of religious sectarianism, and then pointed to the problems THEY created as the reason why European "enlightenment" was necessary in the region.

A hundred years on and the problems have resurfaced. Why? Because in the 1950's a part of the general post-colonial Pan-Arab movement saw the creation of the Ba'ath Party. It was nominally Pan-Arabist, but had a great deal of Socialist ideology behind it. Ba'athists came to power in Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, and the Egyptian government was sympathetic to them. What Ba'athism represented was not simply an Arabic Socialism. It was a unifying narrative that bridged the gaps between the differing ethnic and religious groups in the area. Why was it so important to Saddam Hussein to keep Islamic extremists out of the country? They represented a "solution" to the post-colonial question that would only serve to worsen the problems they were trying to solve. In this way, Western Liberalism looks a lot like Islamic Extremism. While the motivations may be different, both offer solutions that only exacerbate existing problems.

With the absolute gutting of Ba'athism (not helped by excesses and abuses of power by Ba'athist leaders), Iraq lacks a unifying narrative. They have been returned to the same position they found themselves when the British mandate was finished and Iraq gained independence following WWI. An entire century has been wasted because of Western imperial interests in the region. The Liberal solution to Iraq has always been "work with and promote groups that are sympathetic to Western Liberal Democracy". This is the same way the British administered the region. And it is having the same effect.

Western Liberalism is doing in Iraq what it is doing in post-colonial Africa--providing nothing but the same--and it is destroying the places and lives of the people the West is parasitically dependent upon. Thank you Global Post for reminding us that even liberal media outlets are ignoring these people since it doesn't bolster your beloved President-Messiah Obama.

The Boss

All I could find is that this is an American labor poster from 1938, despite a google search (I LOVE the "Search Google for this image" function) telling me the "closest" it could find is Nazi propaganda. Does Google have an agenda? Probably. Their "Do No Evil" slogan from their early days seems to have disappeared as soon as the NSA got involved...but that's a tangent for another time. Anyhoodle, I miss old propaganda posters like this and would like to showcase them from time to time.

Fresh Friday #1

So anyone who read the Inaugural Address post will know that I missed one of the features I promised (Theory Thursday). That was quite unintentional. You see, I'm recently recovered from a broken foot and will be returning to a full time schedule this upcoming week and I was trying to cram as much social time in as possible during my last long mid-week-off. For those interested, I wanted to discuss Hal Draper and his feminism. Since I did not do this, it gives me another week to go over it again and hit any points I might have missed and it will give you guys a chance to familiarize yourselves with the text as well. But, Fridays are not for theorists who are well and published and properly established. Fridays are for fresh ideas, or ideas that I at least think are new. So, without further ado, onto my first installment of Fresh Fridays.

An Evangelical Marxism: How to Approach Marxist Social Education in the Twenty-First Century

-E.M. Diderot

Under the (now) Blessed Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church embarked on something called the "New Evangelization", the idea that the way the Church interacts with the world is out of sync with how the world has developed in the last century. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI also talked about the New Evangelization, and entered into a broader ecumenical dialogue with other Christian denominations and interfaith groups. So far I haven't seen Pope Francis say anything about the New Evangelization, but his platform centered on Social Justice and (tentative) Liberation Theology seems to be on par for the course. What does this have to do with Marxism?

First, the point of this blog is discussion on the creation of a United Left. There is no point to creating a united left unless this unification can attract new blood. In the Twenty-First Century, Marxism is suffering a crisis of relevance in the same way as the Catholic Church. Both Marxists and Catholics see themselves as fundamentally relevant to the creation of solutions for the world's endemic problems, but both are finding a hard place to gain a foothold to inspire mass cultural and social change. A lot of this is rooted in the fact that the Catholic Church still approaches its interaction with society in general and its congregants specifically from the standpoint that it did in the Nineteenth Century. Marxism is very much the same. The development of high degrees of economic specialization, technological advancement, and the birth of the internet and social networking have fundamentally changed the relationship of labor to capital in the modern economy. But much of our language and educational strategy is still firmly rooted in the romanticized notion of the flatcap Irish immigrant in a steel mill twelve hours a day. Capital is still firmly represented with top hats, and that is something WE need to appropriate. Ngyes! (Nigel Thornberry accent required)

Secondly, the language and posturings of religious institutions for (largely) religious populations has been a very effective and prolific strategy in Marxist enterprises around the world. For an in-depth look at how the Bolshevik Party appropriated religious language, attitude, and mentality for its own message in Russia, please reference Nikolai Berdayev's The Religious Foundations of Bolshevism. So, in the United States, the land of Sara Palin, Michele Bachmann, and others, a country where the fastest growing demographic are underpaid, overworked Central American Latino Catholics, why would it not be beneficial to adopt the same language and strategies as a revitalized Catholic Evanglization? Approaching Marxism in an evangelical fashion would not be limited to Catholics, either. The United States is the birthplace of Evangelical Christianity, with its roots in Southern Baptism. Adopting the same sort of apocalyptic language and charismatic posturing would do wonders to draw parallels between the theological hell being prophesied by their fire-and-brimstone preachers and the very real material hell in which they live, now.

If it is the considered opinion of a United Left that the Evangelical Strategy be promoted, it would become necessary for all Marxists to familiarize themselves with the writings of Liberation Theologians and Evangelical and Charismatic Christian authors. Principally, this is due to two factors:
1. It would allow the easy generation of arguments that clearly explain Marxist positions in language that is immediately recognizable and accessible to the masses; and
2. It would eliminate the highly academic air that much Marxist discourse has in the Twenty-First Century today.

This second point I feel is the most important thing we need to combat in approaching cross-ideological Marxist education, today. Much of our language has become increasingly technical and highly sect-specific. To an outsider, this vocabulary is not easy to understand, and it is not their responsibility to educate themselves before encountering it. How many coffee-house conversations have ended due to mutual frustration when the other person "just doesn't get it"? How many times have you had to sidetrack your main argument just to explain a term or concept that is self-evident to you? By adopting the language of the most virulently anti-Marxist populations in the country, we can make these terms and concepts self-evident, as well, and we can get the point across much, much sooner.

Problems and contradictions:

Marxists are materialists, first and foremost. Religion is not a materialist philosophy, and it must be combated. However, I hold that religion in and of itself as a concept is not harmful. Therefore, the focus should not be an offensive war against religion as a social institution, but, instead, an offensive war against the problems that force a need for religion. The religious can very easily be our allies. It was the revolutionary anti-religious attitude of the First International that received the condemnation of Marxism by the Holy See in the first place. It is why the evolution of Liberation Theology has been so troublesome. It is why concepts like "Christian Socialism" and "Christian Communism" have built-in contradictions. The generational impact of a social norm that says "Communism is Anti-Religion" implies that nothing good can come out of Marxism, therefore, its arguments, no matter their validity, must be vigorously combated even when it is against one's own self-interest to do so. Is it any wonder that the Republican Party has so effectively undermined the self-interests of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, yet continue to garner their support?

Marxists must understand that their anti-religious position must as a matter of pure necessity and pragmatism carry with it the caveat that religion will exist so long as it is necessary. Legislating it out of existence (even in a post-revolutionary hypothetical America) will not be possible. It cannot be done in the United States. The First Amendment is more inviolable than the rest of the Constitution in its entirety. What must be sought, instead, is alliance with the religious community, especially the Catholics who already make up a plurality of self-identified religious Americans, so that the reasons religion is sought out can be addressed and corrected. When all religions fade away, the First Amendment will still be there, just in case a new religion springs up.

Second issue: how to overcome anti-Communist bias and stigma among the religious right. It can be done, but it must be done in the same way one church poaches the membership of another. Marxists MUST represent themselves in a moral and an ethically positive way. This should be a matter of fact and self-evident to all Marxists whether they embrace a Marxist Evangelization or not. We seek a humanitarian end, yet we do not always behave as humanitarians. The revolutionary period of American history has not yet come, so we do not need to concern ourselves with violently ridding ourselves of the Capitalist system. To engage the world in the way that St. Paul demanded of the early Church, but with a Marxist ethic rather than a Christian one, would do more to inspire people to overcome their anti-Communist bias than anything else. And if we are already armed with the language and vocabulary of the religious right, it is simply a matter of having coffee with them, and an entirely new demographic will be added to the cause and movement of the United Left.