Greek election post-mortem

"....This time SYRIZA received a large number of votes and a high percentage, but after having watered down to a great extent its slogans concerning the memorandum, the loan agreement, the application laws with its clear position that its policy as a government will be within the framework of the "EU one-way street". It made many assurances to the ruling class and the foreign powers that Greece will remain in the euro at all costs. In that sense, we believe that its support is a negative element given the fact that it has changed its positions regardless of whether we believed that it wouldn't implement the positions it had supported for the May 6 elections. "

Statement of the GS of the CC of the KKE on the elections results of 17th June 2012
 
The results of the June 17 elections were: Communist Party of Greece, 4,5% , New Democracy-ND (Liberal party) 29,6%, SYRIZA (alliance of opportunist forces and forces from PASOK) 26,9%, PASOK (social-democrats) 12,3%, Independent Greeks 7,55 %, Golden Dawn (nationalist, racist party) 6,9% and Democratic Left (split from Syriza and merged with some forces from PASOK) 6,3%, LAOS (older split from ND, nationalist party) 1,6%. Based on these results the KKE will receive 12 seats.

The General Secretary of the CC of the KKE after the announcement of the results made the following statement:

"The election result is negative for the people which has suffered a lot from the economic crisis and the measures that followed, the memoranda, the loan agreement, the application laws.

The people will face serious problems and developments and whatever government is formed will not meet its expectations-the opposite will be true.

Our assessment concerning the negative character of the election result is based on the following elements:

First: on the increase of ND which is a well known anti-people, anti-worker party which does not change. The worst is not over, as Mr. Samaras claimed. The worst is on the way. And the government that will be formed, apparently with ND as its core, will not solve any of the people's problems. On the contrary, it will complicate the problems.

Second: on the increase of SYRIZA in the second elections compared to the significant increase it had in the May elections. This time SYRIZA received a large number of votes and a high percentage, but after having watered down to a great extent its slogans concerning the memorandum, the loan agreement, the application laws with its clear position that its policy as a government will be within the framework of the "EU one-way street". It made many assurances to the ruling class and the foreign powers that Greece will remain in the euro at all costs. In that sense, we believe that its support is a negative element given the fact that it has changed its positions regardless of whether we believed that it wouldn't implement the positions it had supported for the May 6 elections.

Third negative element: the unquestionably great losses of the KKE that will be of greater significance for the readiness of the people to intervene in light of the intensification of the problems due to the crisis in Greece and above all due to the deepening of the crisis in the Eurozone. Our position on 7th May, that these would be the most difficult and most complex elections of the last 40 years for the KKE has been confirmed. We knew the immense obstacles that the party would have to face, which were much larger compared to those we went through up until the May 6 elections, namely the dilemmas of the new bipolar system, ND and SYRIZA. Both were fighting in their own way for the election result, one through intimidations and the other through illusions. Of course, the result must be assessed by the whole party, by KNE, by the friends and supporters of the party, as the party does in every election, in order to arrive at more comprehensive and substantial conclusions.

Fourth negative element: the votes and the percentage of the "Golden Dawn" despite the fact that after 6th May there was much more evidence regarding its fascist and thuggish nature.

The KKE preferred to tell the truth to the people regarding the character of the crisis and the possible outcomes which are connected to the negative developments in the Eurozone, regarding the character of the European Union, regarding the need for the unilateral cancellation of the debt, the need for disengagement from the EU, and the struggle for working class-people's power. We said these things very consciously.

The participation of the KKE in a government to manage the crisis in such a crucial phase, when what is needed is a line of rupture and counterattack , would lead sooner or later to a major defeat for the movement, as the possible participation of the KKE in an untrustworthy government with two faces, one for internal affairs and one for foreign relations, could be used as an alibi for the compromise of the people and the alignment of the government's political line with the interests of the monopolies.

We salute the members of the party and KNE, the friends and supporters of the party who waged this tough battle, and all those who withstood the pressure and voted for the KKE. We state that the KKE will remain standing despite the reduction of its seats in Parliament, it will continue its intense activity in the movement and will support and strengthen every starting point for struggle and hope.

It is certain that the people in the course of events will remember issues which we posed in both the electoral battles, predictions, warnings concerning the developments in the Eurozone, concerning the possibility of Greece's involvement in a war, especially after the US elections. And we also believe that even those people who did not vote for the party, even though they appreciate its positions and role, will understand the consequences in the face of the possibility of an anti-memorandum coalition government.

We assure you that we will abide by every thing we said to the people before the elections. We will be in the front line in every struggle, we will support every militant initiative regarding the acute problems which are in progress, and we will prepare, to the extent that it depends on us, the people so that they can deal with the new torments which are on the way. We hope that this retreat of the radical orientation, which was particularly marked in the second electoral battle, will not last long, because there can be no "wait and see", as the negative developments will unfold extremely rapidly.

The KKE considers that the basis for the people's counterattack must be the workplaces, the sectors and the neighbourhoods. And above all what is most important is the regroupment of the labour and people's movement, the social alliance, the socio-political alliance that will struggle for the immediate and pressing problems, and will also gather forces for the radical overthrow that is necessary."

Athens 17/06/2012 THE PRESS OFFICE OF THE CC OF THE KKE

http://inter.kke.gr/News/news2012/2012-06-18-dilosi-gg

Badiou on Quebec student struggle: "revolt against the idea that business should be the paradigm for everything"

Alain Badiou, famed philosopher and promoter of the "idea of communism" relates his ideas about Quebec and France in the interview below.  Readers of the interview will note how few communist ideas are present in his analysis; indeed, the number of communist ideas expressed is precisely zero.  A federation of France and Germany?  Could a Marxist seriously entertain such a historically retrograde impossibility?  Would a Marxist feel obliged to figure out a resolution for the nations of France and Germany at all?

Jay

20120615

'Always keep an eye on Québec,' Alain Badiou advises

François Gauvin: What do you think of the student conflict in Québec?

Alain Badiou: What I find interesting first of all is the scale and determination of the phenomenon. Basically, what is happening in your country is a sudden and widespread resistance to a global phenomenon, which is trying to apply the business model to every kind of human activity. Like a business, the university is supposed to become self-financing, whereas historically it was built up according to quite different rules. The conflict obviously took the particular and very localized form of a fight against the planned rise in university fees, which then spread to an opposition to the government's handling of the crisis. But it is clear that at the core of the uprising is a subjectivity in revolt against the idea that business should be the paradigm for everything. And this point of resistance is now mobilizing a large-scale debate which concerns us all, and the outcome of which is not predictable.

F.G.: Would you make a comparison with the student revolt of May 1968, when you were a Maoist leader calling for revolution?

A.B.: Yes, in terms of its ways of acting, its style, its inventiveness. That is the first reminder of May 68, the first great echo of an active, joyful subjectivity that does not shy away from conflict when this is needed. Even if it is dividing Québec society. It was just the same in 1968. The students attracted sympathy, but as we saw in the June 1968 legislative elections, which were won by the party of General de Gaulle, French society was completely divided.

F.G.: Your involvement with Québec goes back to that time.

A.B.: Yes. Very soon after May 1968, I went to Montréal as a human rights observer for the trial of Pierre Vallières and Charles Gagnon of the Front de liberation du Québec (FLQ). That was my first real contact, my first immersion in Québec's singular society, which made a strong impression on me.

F.G.: Subsequently, you devoted a whole chapter of your masterwork Logics of Worlds to Québec. Did Québec act as a stimulant for your conception of the world?

A.B.: In the book's overall argument, I took Québec first of all as a particular example. But you're right to speak of a stimulant. The history of Québec sums up several features of world history in recent centuries: a long-standing European colonization, the exceptional presence of two world powers, the English and the French, etc. There is no equivalent to this anywhere else. And that created a society, a subjectivity, which combined terms that are not normally combined. So it really is for me what I call a 'world'. The history of Québec is marked by phenomena that are at the same time irreducibly particular and yet have an innovatory universal character. That is still the case today. I would say: always keep an eye on Québec.

F.G.: You say that Québec is a world in the process of becoming ['devenir-monde']. But what does a world mean for you?

A.B.: In a very general sense, a world is a regime of relations of identities and differences. In order to say what is particular about this world, to simplify, if you take a human world there have to be identities – national, linguistic, the common consciousness of belonging to this world, etc. – and differences. In the case of Québec, of course, the French language is an element of identity, but it is so necessarily in relation to the omnipresent Anglophony and the fact that there have been and still are Amerindians who do not immediately have this identity, and so on. From this point of view, Québec has an absolutely singular history. I speak of it as a world in the making ['faire-monde'] that is still open. As I'm not sure that Québec really has resolved the problem of the world that it is in the process of becoming. The present episode of revolt is part of this, of the Québecois making-world, and its interest for everyone.

F.G.: But isn't every society a world in the making? France, for example.

A.B.: Identities here are more frozen. It's a country in latent crisis, a former planetary great power, with a particular universality, which does not know what to do with its lost greatness. From this point of view, France is at least as much a world being unmade as a world being made. My proposition is that we have to put an end to France.

F.G.: Pardon?

A.B.: I've thought for a long time that France should merge with Germany. I'm very happy, moreover, that other people, such as Michel Serres, now share my opinion. There is no future for France alone. The European combination is teetering, as we've seen with Greece, and everyone understands that France and Germany form the hard core of Europe. A merger would make it possible to stand up to the other economic great powers, which neither France nor Germany, nor Europe, is capable of doing today. The French and German economies are already intertwined, so let's have this hard core realized politically! That could be in the form of a federal state, as is already the case with Germany.

F.G.: And with Canada… But the independentists hope that the demonstrations of solidarity aroused by the crises will help their cause. Is this the start of a new history?

A.B.: I certainly don't know enough about the internal situation of Québec to say so. But I have a certain distrust of the independentists. In the last twenty or thirty years, we have witnessed the break-up of national entities, sometimes their fragmentation. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Somalia, Congo… You have to be very vigilant as to the real meaning of state disintegrations. They are negative phenomena of contemporary history, often responsible for tragic human situations. Well, you're going to say: 'But Québec isn't like that!'

F.G.: You're taking the words out of my mouth…

A.B.: I don't spontaneously support a succession by Québec, without really powerful arguments. I am not sure that the path of the Québec world in the making absolutely needs a state separatism. I believe it is possible to negotiate consistent federalisms, and that this is a better formula.

 

http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1033

Jodi Dean: "Communist Desire"

No one wants to talk to "that guy": some do's and don'ts for revolutional work from the American Party of Labor

The US Hoxhaists at the American Party of Labor just posted this article today.  It is rather abstract and euphemistic, lacking the meat and potatos of what the APL is confronting today as challenges that necessitated the article to begin with.  "Revolutionary work" is mentioned as a concept throughout the article, but seems to be poorly defined: does it mean party-building?  And if so, by what strategy?

Jay

20120615

On Revolutionary Discipline

Discipline is one of the most important lessons for any person to learn, regardless of the work that is set before them. While the individual may at times be tempted to take the easy route in life, to do the minimum while expecting the maximum, rationality dictates that this is the wrong way to proceed for the achievement of important ends. To the revolutionary, discipline is vital for the continuation of revolutionary work. To be a revolutionary is to sacrifice, to continually expend one's energies for the fulfillment of revolutionary goals, to adapt oneself to the needs of the revolution and the work set before them. Without a sense of discipline, the revolutionary can easily be thrown from this course, can shift from doing revolutionary work to doing no work or even to doing counterrevolutionary work.

Now, this is not to say that the revolutionary is not allowed to have a life outside of revolutionary work, and that the revolutionary is only allowed to expend their energies on activities outside of revolutionary work. To expect this of oneself and one's comrades is to alienate them from their own humanity — an alienation which, not only harms the work of cadres in the short term, but also risks compromising one's revolutionary capacity in the long term. Burning oneself out is not what makes a professional revolutionary. Instead, what makes a revolutionary a "professional" is their disciplined consistency of revolutionary action — that they uphold revolutionary ideas, attitudes, activity and perspective in their daily lives.

Ideological Discipline: First and Foremost

"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." — V.I. Lenin

One of the first, and most important, steps to attaining revolutionary discipline is a dedication to learning and applying revolutionary theory consistently. Marxism-Leninism is the highest development of revolutionary theory — it's method of analysis provides a means of illuminating, deconstructing and solving the dilemmas of our day, of challenging the established injustices and facilitating the revolutionary transformation of the entirety of our society for the purposes of serving the laboring masses, destroying the chains that bind them both in the physical sense and in the ideological sense. Marxism-Leninism is our weapon, and in order to utilize this weapon effectively, the revolutionary must be dedicated to the study of theory.

Now, it must be noted that "to study" theory does not mean to merely "read about theory." Reading theory, understanding theory and applying theory are three different, yet equally important things. To apply theory, one must understand theory, and to understand theory, one must read. At the same time, one must not overestimate their theoretical knowledge, to take for granted that their analysis is consistent and sound. The most practiced Marxist-Leninist is capable of error — this is not the fault of the science, but of the scientist. So, what the disciplined revolutionary must do is to take what is read, to do their best to apply that reading to the world around them and to seek help from one's comrades when theoretical questions emerge.

Confront and Defeat One's Shortcomings

One of the most important attitudes that a revolutionary must adopt on some level is humility. After all, when one examines our reality from a materialist perspective, it becomes evident that we are products of the world around us — a world which is flawed, which discourages revolutionary attitudes and encourages reactionary ones — and as a product of such a world the revolutionary must understand that they are not immune to ideas and attitudes that are mistaken or reactionary.

As such, the task of the revolutionary is to do the best that they can to confront and defeat the various attitudes and biases that they have which run counter to their revolutionary ideology and purpose, while remaining open to criticism and able to deliver self-criticism. Democratic-centralism and the sobriety that materialist analysis gives us are both essential to the maintenance of a revolutionary line and revolutionary action. To neglect one is to neglect both. Rather than see these as factors which "limit" the revolutionary, as those with undisciplined, anti-materialist, opportunist and ultra-left theories do, the disciplined Marxist-Leninist understands that the individual is imperfect, and that larger mechanisms to uphold discipline and encourage analysis and action consistent with scientific socialism are necessary.

Your Comrades Are Your Safety Net, and You Are Theirs

A vital point needs to be made that the revolutionary is not, and cannot, be alone in their work. Just as we understand that the individual has limits and, from their origins, is a flawed, we also must understand that our actions, our words, our perspective and our efforts are part of a larger mechanism. The revolutionary does not exist outside of revolution — on the contrary, the revolutionary is a vital part of it. Alone and isolated, the revolutionary is vulnerable to alienation, to mistaken ideas, to disillusionment and to inaction. Yet, with one's comrades, the revolutionary participates in and benefits from a support system for the maintenance of revolutionary line and revolutionary action.

Communication, cooperation, criticism and collective work are vital features of a Marxist-Leninist organization. These things facilitate the achievement of revolutionary goals, the strengthening of cadres and forward motion on behalf of revolution. The organization of Marxist-Leninists is essential for the formation of a vanguard. As such, the duty of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary is to work together with their fellow Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries for their common goals. This duty involves a willingness to work with others, to respect one another within and outside of the context of revolutionary activity, to offer criticism when the attitudes, ideology and activity of one's comrades runs counter to revolutionary discipline and to take seriously criticism one is given. You aren't in this alone, and have a duty to your comrades.

Don't Be a Burn-Out

The duty to one's comrades and to the revolution is the main reason why the disciplined revolutionary must conduct themselves in such a manner as to avoid burning out. When a person becomes a burnout, they not only squander their personal revolutionary potential, but work to damage the morale and activity of their comrades. Being overzealous and hyperactive in one's revolutionary work to the point that it damages their sanity, their health and their morale is every bit as undisciplined as doing no work. This is not an easy lesson to learn, but it is essential to learn for one to become and remain a revolutionary.

A good metaphor for how one must go about being a revolutionary is one that is given for nutrition and personal wellness: to succeed, one needs to create a lifestyle. Just as it is important to maintain healthy eating and exercising by making it routine, rather than by following binges of exercise and starvation with overeating and lethargy, the revolutionary must endeavor to make their work a habit while, at the same time, knowing and respecting their limits, and doing what is necessary to take care of themselves.

Yes, the revolutionary has a duty to themselves, to their well-being and maintenance. This is a duty that is sometimes forgotten by zealous comrades, yet cannot be ignored because of the implications it has for the revolutionary and the movement in general. Every day, the revolutionary must try to find time to decompress, and when one reaches the breaking point — when one feels that there are too many demands being placed on them to the point where they cannot continue to do their work competently and without having a breakdown — the revolutionary's duty is to not break but, instead, to work with his comrades to lessen the load and to take the necessary steps to take care of themselves.

The reason that the revolutionary must endeavor to take care of themselves is two fold: for their personal well-being, and for their well-being as a revolutionary and, by extension, the well-being of their comrades. The revolutionary is a part of a whole and, as a result, damage to them damages the whole.

Remembering the End in Everyday Life

The social implications of the revolutionary minded person go beyond their immediate circle of revolutionary comrades. The revolutionary is a son or a daughter, in many cases a brother or sister, father or mother, friend or relative, co-worker and neighbor. Just as the revolutionary is effected by their social circumstance, the revolutionary contributes to the social circles and broader society they live in. As such, the revolutionary must keep in mind how their activity and attitudes relate to the end of revolution in their everyday lives and must, on some level, endeavor to be a role model to others.

Being a revolutionary doesn't end when you aren't in the field doing political work — discipline must always be applied in every circumstance. Just as chauvinistic and reactionary rhetoric will not be tolerated amongst revolutionaries, the revolutionary must not adopt such rhetoric outside of reactionary chauvinism. To be a revolutionary sometimes and to be a reactionary other times is to be a fraud. At the same time, to be stubbornly incapable of taking criticism, to be self-righteous and pious, condescending and disrespectful in one's everyday life is to be a poor representative of what a revolutionary is. All comrades must be careful of what face they are putting on our movement as they live and work outside of their political life.

Vigilance Tempered with Tact

At this juncture, it is important to make a distinction between being a revolutionary at all times and being an agitator at all times. While these may seem to be the same thing, they are in fact quite different. Being a revolutionary at all times means having a revolutionary mind-set and following revolutionary discipline in one's everyday life, whereas being an agitator at all times means being the person who cannot, and will not, shut up about their politics.

Being "always on," being "that guy" who no one wants to talk to because they're incapable of talking about anything other than Marxism-Leninism, is not productive. In fact, it has the potential of being counter-productive by alienating those around you, giving the impression that those who follow your ideology are motor-mouthed blowhards and cultists. It also lends itself to burnout in that it forces the revolutionary to expend their energy talking down virtually everyone they come into contact with outside of their political circle, leading to increased alienation, stress and disillusionment.

Instead of being "always on," the revolutionary must endeavor to be a courteous and tactful person, who is unafraid to offer up their opinion when asked but feels no need to shove their ideology down the throat of every passerby. If people want to talk about politics, allow them a chance to speak from their perspective, and offer your own, while being careful to not seem to be condescending or insulting. When you conduct yourself in a respectful manner, you maximize the potential for your ideas and perspective to be taken seriously by the people your are talking with, helping to avoid the emotional and irrational responses that we have been conditioned to have by prevailing society. The disciplined revolutionary serves as a role model in every setting, not by the virtue of constant political diatribes and browbeating, but by showing the world what a revolutionary is like.

What Makes a Professional Revolutionary?

We come now to the question of what makes a revolutionary a "professional." We've established that it isn't being a blowhard in every context, isn't being the kind of person to work themselves into exhaustion and isn't a "one man army" in the realm of political activism. So, disregarding these mistaken perceptions, what is a "professional revolutionary?"

The professional revolutionary is a person who makes revolution their profession, who upholds revolutionary ideology and discipline, who works for revolutionary goals and for the forward motion of themselves and their comrades, as part of the daily struggle of revolutionary movement. The professional revolutionary, like any person, fulfills multiple roles in their life, has a number of things that they must do on a daily basis, yet as they do these things they are guided by a purpose much larger than themselves. While their political activity isn't constant, their dedication is.

Conclusion: You are the Means and an End

In the context of revolutionary social movement, the revolutionary is two things: the means to the end of a revolution and an end in of itself. While the revolutionary works and struggles on behalf of revolution, they must keep in mind their needs, the needs of their comrades and the needs of the revolution without forgetting any of them. It is revolutionaries — those who work now for revolution, those who will one day attain revolutionary consciousness and the revolutionaries who have yet to be born — who will lead revolution and will work to shape the society of the future. Our work must be to retain and strengthen the revolutionaries we have now while also working to increase our numbers. We must work to be role models for revolution in our daily lives, to be a safety net for our comrades and to be able to seek help and correction when we need it. These things are the hallmark of revolutionary discipline. It is our ability to conform our work to these needs of revolution that will decide whether we can call ourselves professional revolutionaries or not.

 

http://theredphoenixapl.org/2012/06/14/on-revolutionary-discipline/

Zizek: impenetrable, but still incomprehensible

'Humanity is OK, but 99% of people are boring idiots'

Decca Aitkenhead

Guardian

Slavoj Žižek doesn't know the door number of his own apartment in Ljubljana. "Doesn't matter," he tells the photographer, who wants to pop outside. "Come back in through the main door, and then just think in terms of politically radical right; you turn from left to right, then at the end, right again." But what's the number, in case he gets lost? "I think it's 20," Žižek suggests. "But who knows? Let's double check." So off he pads down the hallway, opens his door and has a look.

Waving the photographer off, he points in the distance across the Slovenian capital. "Over there, that's a kind of counter-culture establishment – they hate me, I hate them. This is the type of leftists that I hate. Radical leftists whose fathers are all very rich." Most of the other buildings, he adds, are government ministries. "I hate it." Now he's back in the living room, a clinically tidy little sliver of functional space lacking any discernible aesthetic, the only concessions being a poster for the video game Call Of Duty: Black Ops, and a print of Joseph Stalin. Žižek pours Coke Zero into plastic McDonald's cups decorated in Disney merchandising, but when he opens a kitchen cupboard I see that it's full of clothes.

"I live as a madman!" he exclaims, and leads me on a tour of the apartment to demonstrate why his kitchen cabinets contain only clothing. "You see, there's no room anywhere else!" And indeed, every other room is lined, floor to ceiling, with DVDs and books; volumes of his own 75 works, translated into innumerable languages, fill one room alone.

If you have read all of Žižek's work, you are doing better than me. Born in 1949, the Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic grew up under Tito in the former Yugoslavia, where suspicions of dissidence consigned him to academic backwaters. He came to western attention in 1989 with his first book written in English, The Sublime Object of Ideology, a re-reading of Žižek's great hero Hegel through the perspective of another hero, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. Since then there have been titles such as Living in the End Times, along with films – The Pervert's Guide To Cinema – and more articles than I can count.

By the standards of cultural theory, Žižek sits at the more accessible end of the spectrum – but to give you an idea of where that still leaves him, here's a typical quote from a book called Žižek: A Guide for the Perplexed, intended to render him more comprehensible: "Žižek finds the place for Lacan in Hegel by seeing the Real as the correlate of the self-division and self-doubling within phenomena."

At the risk of upsetting Žižek's fanatical global following, I would say that a lot of his work is impenetrable. But he writes with exhilarating ambition and his central thesis offers a perspective even his critics would have to concede is thought-provoking. In essence, he argues that nothing is ever what it appears, and contradiction is encoded in almost everything. Most of what we think of as radical or subversive – or even simply ethical – doesn't actually change anything.

"Like when you buy an organic apple, you're doing it for ideological reasons, it makes you feel good: 'I'm doing something for Mother Earth,' and so on. But in what sense are we engaged? It's a false engagement. Paradoxically, we do these things to avoid really doing things. It makes you feel good. You recycle, you send £5 a month to some Somali orphan, and you did your duty." But really, we've been tricked into operating safety valves that allow the status quo to survive unchallenged? "Yes, exactly." The obsession of western liberals with identity politics only distracts from class struggle, and while Žižek doesn't defend any version of communism ever seen in practice, he remains what he calls a "complicated Marxist" with revolutionary ideals.

To his critics, as one memorably put it, he is the Borat of philosophy, churning out ever more outrageous statements for scandalous effect. "The problem with Hitler was that he was not violent enough," for example, or "I am not human. I am a monster." Some dismiss him as a silly controversialist; others fear him as an agitator for neo-Marxist totalitarianism. But since the financial crisis he has been elevated to the status of a global-recession celebrity, drawing crowds of adoring followers who revere him as an intellectual genius. His popularity is just the sort of paradox Žižek delights in because if it were down to him, he says, he would rather not talk to anyone.

You wouldn't guess so from the energetic flurry of good manners with which he welcomes us, but he's quick to clarify that his attentiveness is just camouflage for misanthropy. "For me, the idea of hell is the American type of parties. Or, when they ask me to give a talk, and they say something like, 'After the talk there will just be a small reception' – I know this is hell. This means all the frustrated idiots, who are not able to ask you a question at the end of the talk, come to you and, usually, they start: 'Professor Žižek, I know you must be tired, but …' Well, fuck you. If you know that I am tired, why are you asking me? I'm really more and more becoming Stalinist. Liberals always say about totalitarians that they like humanity, as such, but they have no empathy for concrete people, no? OK, that fits me perfectly. Humanity? Yes, it's OK – some great talks, some great arts. Concrete people? No, 99% are boring idiots."

Most of all, he can't stand students. "Absolutely. I was shocked, for example, once, a student approached me in the US, when I was still teaching a class – which I will never do again – and he told me: 'You know, professor, it interested me what you were saying yesterday, and I thought, I don't know what my paper should be about. Could you please give me some more thoughts and then maybe some idea will pop up.' Fuck him! Who I am to do that?"

Žižek has had to quit most of his teaching posts in Europe and America, to get away from these intolerable students. "I especially hate when they come to me with personal problems. My standard line is: 'Look at me, look at my tics, don't you see that I'm mad? How can you even think about asking a mad man like me to help you in personal problems, no?'" You can see what he means, for Žižek cuts a fairly startling physical figure – like a grizzly bear, pawing wildly at his face, sniffing and snuffling and gesticulating between every syllable. "But it doesn't work! They still trust me. And I hate this because – this is what I don't like about American society – I don't like this openness, like when you meet a guy for the first time, and he's starting to tell you about his sex life. I hate this, I hate this!"

I have to laugh at this, because Žižek brings up his sex life within moments of our first meeting. On the way up in the lift he volunteers that a former girlfriend used to ask him for what he called "consensual rape". I had imagined he would want to discuss his new book about Hegel, but what he really seems keen to talk about is sex.

"Yeah, because I'm extremely romantic here. You know what is my fear? This postmodern, permissive, pragmatic etiquette towards sex. It's horrible. They claim sex is healthy; it's good for the heart, for blood circulation, it relaxes you. They even go into how kissing is also good because it develops the muscles here – this is horrible, my God!" He's appalled by the promise of dating agencies to "outsource" the risk of romance. "It's no longer that absolute passion. I like this idea of sex as part of love, you know: 'I'm ready to sell my mother into slavery just to fuck you for ever.' There is something nice, transcendent, about it. I remain incurably romantic."

I keep thinking I should try to intervene with a question, but he's off again. "I have strange limits. I am very – OK, another detail, fuck it. I was never able to do – even if a woman wanted it – annal sex." Annal sex? "Ah, anal sex. You know why not? Because I couldn't convince myself that she really likes it. I always had this suspicion, what if she only pretends, to make herself more attractive to me? It's the same thing for fellatio; I was never able to finish into the woman's mouth, because again, my idea is, this is not exactly the most tasteful fluid. What if she's only pretending?"

He can count the number of women he has slept with on his hands, because he finds the whole business so nerve-racking. "I cannot have one-night stands. I envy people who can do it; it would be wonderful. I feel nice, let's go, bang-bang – yes! But for me, it's something so ridiculously intimate – like, my God, it's horrible to be naked in front of another person, you know? If the other one is evil with a remark – 'Ha ha, your stomach,' or whatever – everything can be ruined, you know?" Besides, he can't sleep with anyone unless he believes they might stay together for ever. "All my relationships – this is why they are very few – were damned from the perspective of eternity. What I mean with this clumsy term is, maybe they will last."

But Žižek has been divorced three times. How has he coped with that? "Ah, now I will tell you. You know the young Marx – I don't idealise Marx, he was a nasty guy, personally – but he has a wonderful logic. He says: 'You don't simply dissolve marriage; divorce means that you retroactively establish that the love was not the true love.' When love goes away, you retroactively establish that it wasn't even true love." Is that what he did? "Yes! I erase it totally. I don't only believe that I'm no longer in love. I believe I never was."

As if to illustrate this, he glances at his watch; his 12-year-old son, who lives nearby, will be arriving shortly. How is this going to work when he gets here? Don't worry, Žižek says, he's bound to be late – on account of the tardiness of his mother: "The bitch who claims to have been my wife." But weren't they married? "Unfortunately, yes."

Žižek has two sons – the other is in his 30s – but never wanted to be a parent. "I will tell you the formula why I love my two sons. This is my liberal, compassionate side. I cannot resist it, when I see someone hurt, vulnerable and so on. So precisely when the son was not fully wanted, this made me want to love him even more."

By now I can see we're not going to get anywhere near Žižek's new book about Hegel, Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism. Instead, he tells me about the holidays he takes with his young son. The last one was to the Burj Al Arab hotel, a grotesque temple to tacky ostentation in Dubai. "Why not? Why not? I like to do crazy things. But I did my Marxist duty. I got friendly with the Pakistani taxi driver who showed to me and my son reality. The whole structure of how the workers there live was explained, how it was controlled. My son was horrified." This summer they are off to Singapore, to an artificial island with swimming pools built on top of 50-storey skyscrapers. "So we can swim there and look down on the city: 'Ha ha, fuck you.' That's what I like to do – totally crazy things." It wasn't so much fun when his son was younger. "But now, we have a certain rhythm established. We sleep 'til one, then we go to breakfast, then we go to the city – no culture, just consumerism or some stupid things like this – then we go back for dinner, then we go to a movie theatre, then we play games 'til three in the morning."

I wonder what all Žižek's earnest young followers will make of this, and worry they will be cross with me for not getting anything more serious out of him. But to Žižek, Dubai tells us just as much about the world as a debate about the deficit, say, ever can. When his sweet-looking, polite young son arrives, I try to steer Žižek on to the financial crisis, and to the role his admirers hope he will play in formulating a radical response.

"I always emphasise: don't expect this from me. I don't think that the task of a guy like me is to propose complete solutions. When people ask me what to do with the economy, what the hell do I know? I think the task of people like me is not to provide answers but to ask the right questions." He's not against democracy, per se, he just thinks our democratic institutions are no longer capable of controlling global capitalism. "Nice consensual incremental reforms may work, possibly, at a local level." But localism belongs in the same category as organic apples, and recycling. "It's done to make you feel good. But the big question today is how to organise to act globally, at an immense international level, without regressing to some authoritarian rule."

How will that happen? "I'm a pessimist in the sense that we are approaching dangerous times. But I'm an optimist for exactly the same reason. Pessimism means things are getting messy. Optimism means these are precisely the times when change is possible." And what are the chances that things won't change? "Ah, if this happens then we are slowly approaching a new apartheid authoritarian society. It will not be – I must underline this – the old stupid authoritarianism. This will be a new form, still consumerist." The whole world will look like Dubai? "Yes, and in Dubai, you know, the other side are literally slaves."

There is something inexplicably touching about all Žižek's mischievous bombast. I hadn't expected him to be so likable, but he really is hilariously good company. I had hoped to find out if he was a genius or a lunatic – but I fear I leave none the wiser. I ask him how seriously he would recommend we take him, and he says he would rather be feared than taken for a clown. "Most people think I'm making jokes, exaggerating – but no, I'm not. It's not that. First I tell jokes, then I'm serious. No, the art is to bring the serious message into the forum of jokes."

Two years ago his front teeth came out. "My son knows I have a good friend; none of us is gay, just good friends. So when he saw me without teeth, he said: 'I know why.' My son! He was 10! You know what he told me? Think, associate, in the dirtiest way." I think I can guess. "Yes! Sucking! He said my friend complained that my teeth were in the way." Žižek roars with laughter, great gales of paternal pride.

"And you know what was tragicomic? After he told me this, he said: 'Father, did I tell this joke well?'"

http://www.lacan.com/thesymptom/?page_id=2127

Reformism and the United Secretariat

Statement: Crisis in Greece, division in the Fourth International

1 June 2012

We publish below a letter of protest from the Greek section of the Fourth International protesting a new policy by the FI leadership – a 'unity' project in Greece and across Europe on a reformist programme - and the fact that this position was produced without reference to the Greek movement. Socialist Democracy fully endorses the Greek protest and sees an ugernt need to discuss both the immediate issue of lack of democratic norms in the international and the substantive issue of a revolutionary programme for Europe and the need for a movement able to put forward such a programme.(ed)
 

Dear Comrades,

You've probably seen that the "Executive Bureau of the Fourth International" (EBFI) has issued a statement on Greece in "Int. Viewpoint". In this statement it declares itself unreservedly in favor of the previously published opinion of SR, the British section of the FI. Thus it challenges the view of OKDE (the Greek Section) and of ANTARSYA (which OKDE is part of). (My article that was also published last week in IV reflects the general approach of OKDE.) The declaration of the EBFI advocates unequivocally, and with all desirable clarity, the political conception of the SYRIZA leadership, especially its "5-Point Plan". The declaration states:

"We call for the coming together of all the forces which are fighting against austerity in Greece - Syriza, Antarsya, the KKE, the trade unions and the other social movements - around an emergency plan." And:
 
"Confronted by the policy imposed by the Troika, the Greek radical Left, and in particular Syriza, which today occupies a central place in the Greek political situation, defends a 5-point emergency plan:
"1. Abolition of the memoranda, of all measures of austerity and of the counter-reforms of the labour laws which are destroying the country.
"2. Nationalization of the banks which have been largely paid by government aid.
"3. A moratorium on payment of the debt and an audit which will make it possible to denounce and abolish the illegitimate debt.
"4. Abolition of immunity of ministers from prosecution.
"5. Modification of the electoral law which allowed PASOK and New Democracy to govern to the detriment of the Greek population and to plunge the country into crisis."

There is no space here for a deeper analysis. From my / our point of view I / we would comment as follows:

- OKDE, as the Greek section, was not even consulted before the publication of this statement. This, in itself, is highly irregular and completely unacceptable. Whether the comrades of the EBFI agree with the orientation of OKDE in the present situation or not (and it is certainly their right to disagree) it is a violation of every basic tenet of international leadership for them to adopt a position without even initiating a discussion with the comrades who are actively engaged in Greece itself. For some decades now, when various national sections of the FI have taken actions or developed an orientation which many in our world movement considered objectionable, but which reflected a rightward political drift, we have been consistently informed--by the same comrades who drafted and voted for this statement on Greece--that it is not the proper role of the FI's elected bodies to publicly criticize sections regarding their national "tactics." This was the approach insisted on, for example, when the comrades in Mexico endorsed the campaign of Cuathemoc Cardenas for president, running as the candidate of the bourgeois PRD; in Brazil when the Socialist Democracy current chose to politically support the neoliberal government of Lula in the months immediately after he was elected president; in Italy when a comrade in the Senate voted to fund the war in Afghanistan, justifying this by the need to follow the discipline of Rifondazione; in Denmark when the leadership of SAP agreed with the majority of the Red-Green alliance that it would be OK to vote "yes" on the budget of a potential left-reformist bourgeois government; in Portugal when comrades from the Left Bloc in parliament voted in favor of the draconian EU "bailout" for Greece. (The one partial exception to this pattern that we would note was with Brazil, but here the differentiation, when it came, was extremely mild and took place only after a considerable delay, prompted by the fact that our former section had undeniably been turned into a social-democratic formation and was no longer a section of the FI.) Today, however, when the comrades in the EBFI object to the OKDE's revolutionary policy and want to endorse the reformist SYRIZA "action plan," the EBFI suddenly leaps into action to issue a public differentiation from the approach being advocated by the Greek section. This kind of double standard should be completely unacceptable to all comrades of the FI, no matter what their opinions might be on the substantive issues.
 
- Whatever one may think of SYRIZA, CPG (KKE) and ANTARSYA, one can hardly deny that the "5-Point Plan" of SYRIZA reveals in no uncertain terms the true character of SYRIZA, that is, a rather right reformism to characterize it politically. It is clear that the political objectives of SYRIZA remain definitively within the framework of capitalism and bourgeois democracy (the credibility of which is, however, shaken to its foundations in Greece today).

- It is difficult to assess the differences between the orientation of OKDE (and of ANTARSYA) and the declaration of the EBFI as merely "tactical." It seems to clearly be a matter of two fundamentally incompatible views—both counterposed political assessments and political/programmatic orientations.

- At the end of each article in "Int. Viewpoint" one can read the following: "The Fourth International - an international organization struggling for the socialist revolution - is composed of sections, of militants who accept and apply its principles and programme." The time has come, however, to honestly ask ourselves: What principles, what program?

- Given the extreme escalation and the critical situation in Greece, which is emphasized by the very declaration adopted by the EBFI, the FI finds itself at a crossroads: Should we support a perspective that can only be characterized as (left) reformist, or do we support a revolutionary anti-capitalism and an updated transition program? All sections, currents, groups, and ultimately every militant will have to take a position on this question.
 
I would like to add a brief assessment of the current situation in Greece:

After the elections of May 6 a further polarization of the electorate between "left and right" is developing, clearly favoring SYRIZA and New Democracy (ND). On the left everything is turning towards SYRIZA. The left sentiment is still rising and is currently at about 40% (on May 6 it was still at 37%). On the other hand, the intimidating propaganda (mainly from the German mass media) urging that Greece be kicked out of the euro favors ND and PASOK. The present published opinion polls are slightly different from one another but give the following overall picture:

ND 23.5 to 26%, SYRIZA 21.5 to 28.5 (or even 30) %, PASOK 13.1 to 14.8%, Independent Greeks (nationalistic - rightwing, but against the memoranda policies) 5.8 - 7.2% , DIMAR (politically somewhere between PASOK and SYRIZA, a particular phenomenon) 6.2 - 7.0%, CPG (KKE) 4.8 - 5.2%, Ch.Avgi (fascists) from 3.8 to 5.5%, Dimiourgia xana / Drasi (extreme neo-liberal) 2.4 - 3%. ANTARSYA is mentioned with 1%. It may be, however, that the result of the next election on June 17 will be well below this figure, since parliamentary illusions are in full bloom. This should be understandable in any case.

SYRIZA could therefore actually be the first party in the next electoral round. But we still strongly doubt that the formation of a "left government" can be achieved, since there is no suitable coalition partner in sight. KKE will not participate, as everybody knows. DIMAR is one likely coalition partner but that would pull SYRIZA even further to the right. The "Independent Greeks" are very unlikely to join such a government as they are rightwing-nationalist and do not fit with SYRIZA.

If ND and PASOK, and possibly still another party (e.g. DIMAR), are going to form a government, muddling along in the context of the memoranda policies as before, the country will very soon be left with no prospect. There could well be totally uncontrollable outbreaks, more reminiscent of chaos or civil war perhaps. The society itself is on the verge of collapse and cannot simply go on like this. On the other hand, a viable alternative is hardly in sight.
 
There is a feeling (it seems to me) that the rise of SYRIZA is the last chance of the national as well as the international system (addressed to the Troika, i.e. especially to the German government, but also to the "public opinion" in Germany) to save the situation with something akin to "normal" methods. But one cannot be sure that this exit or escape will work, for various reasons. And then? What happens when SYRIZA fails (or, more precisely, during the time that SYRIZA is in the process of failing)? The most likely variant is a deepening polarization between left-revolutionary and fascist alternatives. Right now the fascists clearly have a considerable head start in this competition, while the revolutionary left alternative is only an embryo. This underlines the importance of following a revolutionary strategy along the lines of what the OKDE and ANTARSYA have been attempting. Now is not the time to be tailing after a reformist project. Now is the time to be building the revolutionary alternative that the Greek people need.
 
It is also clear that in the future "everything" may well depend on the proper TACTICAL behavior of the anti-capitalist - revolutionary forces (i.e. mainly ANTARSYA) towards SYRIZA (and secondarily towards KKE). It is obviously not enough to say, "SYRIZA means reformism, so get rid of it." Since ANTARSYA itself is under pressure and not very united or strong, a prediction about the demise of SYRIZA is hardly the best approach. The only certainty is that the disappointment will be tremendous if SYRIZA really does come into power and turns out to be incapable of changing anything for the benefit of the people. In any case, the situation is very exciting. International solidarity will be most needed in every respect. This must be radically different, however, from the political support of SYRIZA's reformism. - We shall see.

Revolutionary greetings

Andreas (OKDE)

 
http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/RecentArticles/RecentStatementCrisisInGreeceDivisionInTheFI.html

Treason of the intellectuals redux

From Ex-Leftists to Anti-Leftists

by Emir Sader

Isaac Deutscher has an article entitled "Heretics and Renegades," delineating the path of people who begin by breaking with left-wing theories and positions and end up becoming fanatical anti-leftists.  They are characters who have, over time, populated the Right all over the world.

Some of them took advantage of Stalinism in order to condemn Lenin and, eventually, Marx and Marxism.  It's no accident that a non-negligible proportion of them have Trotskyist origin.  Proceeding to equate Stalinism with Nazism in order to absolutize "Stalinist totalitarianism" was already a step toward liberalism and anti-communism.

Here's a standard type: those who are on the Left, even militantly so, suddenly "repent," drop everything, deny and denounce their pasts and their comrades, the idols whom they worshipped blindly, in order to surrender themselves -- together with their arms, history, and, frequently, work -- to the Right.

Some of them remain on the Left, in its most moderate corner, denouncing, in a strongly anti-left tone, what's not "democratic" in the currents of the Left itself.  They are loud advocates of alliances with centrist and even right-wing currents, and they tend to dilute the distinction between Left and Right.

Others, more commonly, become militant right-wingers, of the most fundamentalist sort, in the style of anti-communists during the Cold War.  They get positions in the right-wing media -- from editorships of magazines to columns in newspapers to invitations to appear on television -- as rewards for their loyalty.

There are also writers, intellectuals, musicians, declining at the sad ends of their careers, who abandon the rebel postures of their pasts, to submit to the powers that be and the mass media in exchange for column inches, prizes, eulogies, which confirm their end-of-career losses of dignity.

Emir Sader is a Brazilian sociologist.  The original article "De ex a anti-esquerdistas" was published in Carta Maior on 21 May 2012.  Translation by Yoshie Furuhashi.

URL: mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2012/sader130612.html

 

 

 

Emir Sadr is correct that most ex-lefts began their journey by leaving the Trotskyist movement behind.  But it is also the leading cadre of the Trotskyist movement who have analyzed these treasons of the intellectuals from a historical materialism perspective.  Sadr, on the other hand, by not being concrete, leads us to think that these retreats are merely the whims and fancies of the individuals involved, as though one day Dwight Macdonald or Sidney Hook got a bee in their bonnet and headed for the hills!

James P. Cannon wrote several useful articles on the topic:

The Pathology of Renegacy [1940]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1940/renegades.htm

The Treason of the Intellectuals

http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1947/intellect.htm

George Novack wrote

Marxism and the Intellectuals

http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/1935/12/x01.htm

From Revisionism to Social-Chauvinism: The Degradation of Sidney Hook

http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/1942/06/hook.htm

Radical Intellectuals in the 1930s

http://www.marxists.org/archive/novack/works/1967/sep/x01.htm

The most sustained polemic against former Marxists seeking to return to bourgeois politics and philosophy is Trotsky's own book In Defense of Marxism:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/index.htm

 

Jay

20120613