From The University of Chicago Press:
In 1978, as the protests against the Shah of Iran reached their zenith, philosopher Michel Foucault was working as a special correspondent for Corriere della Sera and le Nouvel Observateur. During his little-known stint as a journalist, Foucault traveled to Iran, met with leaders like Ayatollah Khomeini, and wrote a series of articles on the revolution. Foucault and the Iranian Revolution is the first book-length analysis of these essays on Iran, the majority of which have never before appeared in English. Accompanying the analysis are annotated translations of the Iran writings in their entirety and the at times blistering responses from such contemporaneous critics as Middle East scholar Maxime Rodinson as well as comments on the revolution by feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir.
Read the rest of this entry »
A UK group recently published the first issue of Shift, which includes a handful of articles about reactionary or right-wing anti-capitalism. Articles include “German neo-Nazis and anti-capitalism,” by Jan Langehein; “Make a foreshortened critique of capitalism history!” by the Berlin group, Theorie. Organisation. Praxis; and a shortened version of my G8-Summit Protests in Germany: Against Globalisation and its Non-Emancipatory Responses.” (The original version can be read on ZNet.)
From the Editorial of Shift #1:
“The decision to go to Heathrow was wrong!” This was the impulsive thought that was playing on our minds as we followed eight politicians and herds of protesters to Germany; to meet Shift contributors, eat in squats, sleep in tents and on dirty floors, drink 50p-a-bottle beer with ‘the movement’, and of course to “shut them down” – again. Throughout the journey, this impulse became a much reflected upon certainty (avoiding the quick guilty trip by plane allowed us the luxury of 26 hour-a-go bus journeys and plenty of time to think). Yes the aviation industry is a major problem, as the fastest growing source of C02 emissions plans for expansion fly in the face of any commendable efforts to tackle climate change. Heathrow seemed an obvious choice simply because of its size and expansion plans. But to make radical politics work, we need to come up with more than just big=evil! Sometimes the Camp for Climate Action transcended such simple equations, but more often than not it presented itself as a protest for austerity. If the anti-G8 mobilisation in Germany showed anything, it was that protest is not necessarily progressive. Opposition to neoliberal globalisation did not only come from the Left. Anti-consumerist and “Bush go home” slogans were also heard on neo-Nazi marches. The common target on both sides of the political spectrum was the greed of a few causing unemployment, ecological disaster, widespread poverty and imperialist war. The German far Right had mobilised against a profit-driven system run by multinationals, America and Israel. Sound familiar?
Read the magazine here.
Antifa groups from Germany and Austria have just published a pamphlet about antisemitism and anti-zionism. It includes basic texts, including critical theorists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s “Theses on Antisemitism”; two texts by Moishe Postone, one on Nazi antisemitism, the other on contemporary forms of anti-capitalism; and a text on anti-Zionism. The pamphlet is downloadable from their website. More information below.
Why your revolution is no liberation!
With this reader, we want to take a stand against the currently predominating analyses, of the anti-globalisation movement, which, articulating themselves as in the broadest sense left-wing and anticapitalist, constantly boisterously trumpet their opinion, that another world was possible. We have serious doubts that this “other” world, was going to be of a better constitution than the current one. This anti-globalisation movement is of course not at all marginalised, but is enjoying broad sympathy, which reaches from the “bourgeois left” right to the so-called centre of society and which is even shared by Neo-Nazis
Read the rest of this entry »
June 4th, 2007
far-Right, g8, left-right overlap, social movements, conspiracism, antisemitism, Germany, anti-capitalism, anti-globalization, anti-zionism
The text below is from a leaflet distributed at the anti-G8 mobilization in Germany, by the Berlin group, Theorie, Organisation, Praxis (TOP).
Capitalism is no conspiracy and the Hamas is not the Rebel Alliance
Against Antisemitism within the activist scene
You consider yourself an activist, a radical, maybe an anarchist. In any case you are someone who is an outspoken critic of capitalism and who wants to end oppression and injustice as the left all over the world wants to.
At the same time, all over the world, Antisemitism is on the rise again. It takes many forms, some of which are violent such as verbal and physical attacks, while others are more subtle.
Antisemitism has a long and gruesome history: Since the middle ages, Christianity supported pogroms against Jews. Later, the natural sciences came up with the idea of an inferior Jewish „race“, and generally speaking Jews often got blamed for all evil in the world. The climax were the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other concentration camps where six million Jews were murdered.
The activist movement, however, seems to ignore this history and the fact that Jews still are not secure. Rather than acknowledging Antisemitism as another means of oppression that needs to be fought – such as racism or sexism – quite a few of its members actively take part in pushing antisemitic attitudes.
Read the rest of this entry »
FAR RIGHT AGAINST GLOBALIZATION:
Neo-Nazis Mobilizing Against G-8 Summit
May 14, 2007
Der Spiegel
Germany’s Neo-Nazis are using anti-capitalist rhetoric and are mobilizing to protest against the upcoming G-8 meeting in June. Police fear that there could be clashes between the extreme-right NPD and radical far-left groups also gathering to protest against the summit.
read more here
Here is an article from an anti-racist group in the Netherlands, that problematizes anti-globalization activism. The article is from 1999, but with the upcoming anti-G8 mobilization in Germany, and the attempts by far-Right groups to hold their own anti-G8 and “anti-capitalist” demos, the article is just as relevant today.
De Fabel van de illegaal has played a very active role in the campaigns against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the World Trade Organisation in the Netherlands since the end of 1997. The sympathy of the extreme-right for the campaigns has been bothering De Fabel for a long time. Intensive discussions have led us to the conclusion that this interest is not a coincidence, but is caused by structural flaws in the campaigns. In June 1999 De Fabel therefore decided to quit the campaigns against the MAI and the WTO. In the following articles we explain why. We invite all those who are interested to co-operate in the research and discussions to develop explicitly left-wing analyses and campaigns connected to international solidarity.
read more on the De Fabel van de illegaal website
The Case for DIS-unity in the Anti-War Movement:
Why there must be a clear break between those who support Iraq’s genuine civil resistance and those who support reactionary political Islam.
A Discussion with Bill Weinberg
While the majority of Americans are increasingly opposed to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the anti-war movement has been growing smaller and smaller. This has prompted a renewed call for “unity” within the movement, but is the problem simply that we are not united?
Many in the anti-war movement lend support to forces in Iraq that suppress the rights of women, workers, national minorities and GLBT people because these forces, presently, oppose the occupation. Is unity around a narrow and reactionary anti-imperialism the ground for building a mass anti-war movement or the development of a positive future for the people of Iraq?
In Iraq today, progressive, democratic and secular groups like the the Iraqi Freedom Congress and the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq are struggling against both the occupation and terrorist reaction in an effort to build a non-sectarian and multi-ethnic society. Can we build a new kind of anti-war movement based on solidarity with these struggles, as well as demanding the immediate end of the US occupation? This would be a movement that the majority of Americans can relate to because they share the aspirations of Iraqi workers, women and other ordinary people for freedom.
Read the rest of this entry »
By Moishe Postone
As is well known, the period since the early 1970s has been one of massive historical structural transformations, frequently referred to as the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism (or, better, from Fordism through post-Fordism to neo-liberal global capitalism), entailing the undermining of the state-centric order of the mid-20th century. This transformation of social, economic and cultural life has been as fundamental as the earlier transition from 19th century liberal capitalism to the state-interventionist, bureaucratic forms of the 20th century.
Because these transformations have also involved the dramatic collapse of the Soviet Union and of European Communism, they have been interpreted as marking the end of Marxism and of the theoretical relevance of Marx’s critical social theory. Yet recent historical transformations have also reasserted the central importance of historical dynamics and large-scale structural changes – the problematic at the heart of Marx’s critique (and precisely that which eludes the grasp of the major theories of the immediate post-Fordist era – those of Foucault, Derrida, Habermas).
Focusing on this problematic casts a number of important issues in a different light. For example, the question of the relation of democracy to capitalism and its presumed negation, communism – and, more generally, of the relation of historical contingency (and, hence, politics) to necessity – becomes inflected differently when considered in relation to the overarching historical transformations of the past three decades.
Recent structural transformations involve the reversal of what had appeared to be a logic of increasing state centrism. Consequently, they call into question linear notions of historical development – whether Marxist or Weberian. Moreover, the existence of large-scale historical patterns such as the rise of Fordism out of the crisis of 19th century liberal capitalism and, then, the demise of the Fordist synthesis indicates that the scope of contingency is constrained in capitalism. Focusing on the realm of politics alone, such as the differences between conservative and social democratic governments, for example, cannot explain why regimes everywhere in the West, regardless of the party in power, deepened and expanded welfare state institutions in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s, only to cut back such programs and structures in subsequent decades. There have been differences, of course, but these have been differences in degree rather than in kind.
The existence of such large-scale patterns, which, I would argue, are ultimately rooted in the dynamics of capital, has been largely overlooked in discussions on democracy as well as in debates on the merits of social coordination by planning versus that effected by markets. These patterns imply a degree of historical necessity. By grounding such patterns in the categories of his critique, Marx grounded them in historically specific forms of heteronomy and indicated that overcoming capital entails more than overcoming exploitation and structural inequality; it also entails overcoming determinate structural constraints on action, thereby expanding the realm of historical contingency and, hence, the horizon of politics.
To the degree to which we choose to use the term “indeterminacy,” then, it should be as a goal of social and political action rather than as an ontological characteristic of social life. Positions that attempt to posit the latter emphasize that freedom and contingency are related. They overlook, however, the constraints on contingency exerted by capital as a form of social life. Within the framework I am presenting, the term “communism” can be reappropriated as the indeterminacy that becomes possible when the constraints exerted by capital are overcome; social democracy would refer to attempts to ameliorate inequality within the framework of the necessity imposed structurally by capital. As indeterminate, communism can only arise as a historically determinate possibility generated by the internal tensions of capital, not as a “tiger’s leap” out of history.
A second general issue raised by recent historical transformations is that of internationalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War has opened the possibility of a reinvigorated internationalism that is globally critical – as opposed to those Cold War forms of “internationalism” that were critical of one camp in ways that served as a legitimating ideology for other camps, which were very much part of a larger whole that should have been the object of critique.
In this essay, I shall begin addressing this second general issue, that of historical change, internationalism, and political mobilization today. However central Marx’s analysis might be to grasping the contemporary world, there has been a major hiatus between his critical theory of capitalism and much recent anti-hegemonic mass mobilization. I shall present some very preliminary reflections on what I regard as an impasse reached by many anti-hegemonic movements today, while reflecting critically on different forms of political violence.
The impasse to which I am referring has been dramatized recently by many responses on the Left – certainly in the USA, perhaps in Europe – to the suicide bombing of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, as well as by the character of the mass mobilizations against the Iraq War. In both cases the Left found itself faced with what should have been viewed as a dilemma – a conflict between a global imperial power and a deeply reactionary counter-globalization movement in one case, and a brutal fascistoid regime on the other. And in neither case did the Left (at least in the US) problematize this dilemma and try to analyze this configuration with an eye toward the possibility of beginning to formulate what has become exceedingly difficult in the world today – a critique with emancipatory intent. This would have required developing a form of internationalism that broke with the dualisms of a Cold War framework that frequently legitimated as “anti-imperialist” state structures and policies that were no more emancipatory than many authoritarian and repressive regimes supported by the American government.
Instead of breaking with such a framework, however, much of the Left has recently taken recourse to precisely such earlier conceptual frameworks and political stances whose increasingly anachronistic character highlights the difficulties of formulating an adequate critique today. At the heart of this neo-anti-imperialism is a concretization of the abstract, a fetishization of capital on the global level as the USA, or, in some variants, as the USA and Israel. It goes without saying that the disastrous imperious character of the Bush administration has helped mightily in this process. Nevertheless the results of this worldview, which in many respects recapitulates one of a century ago in which the subject position of the USA and Israel were occupied by Britain and the Jews, are very negative for the constitution of adequate anti-hegemonic politics today.
Read the rest of this entry »
from Workers’ Liberty
The following is an abridged translation of a speech given by Haury in Halle (Saale) in 2003. His speech summarised the arguments he had developed at greater length in “The Logic of German Anti-Zionism”.
Introduction:
In the 1990s the question of left anti-semitism triggered strong emotions and even aggression: surely it is impossible for people on the Left to be anti-semitic? How can the two go together? After all, left-wingers are anti-fascist, leftist, and revolutionary; therefore, they cannot be racist and anti-semitic.
By way of an introduction, let me quote five statements:
“Do not buy from Jews!”
The “Jewish world movement” is led by “Jewish multi-millionaires who are to be found everywhere in the world,” and who “meet up again and again in private conferences.”
“The domination of the world’s media by Jewish propaganda” is an established fact.
“The goal of Jewish politics: World domination?!”
Jewry is “the enemy of all people.”
These are anti-semitic statements. But all five statements are to be found in left-wing propaganda against Israel. The second one is from the Palestine Solidarity magazine Al Karamah in the 1980s, the third is from the Anti-Imperialist Information Bulletin in 1971, the fourth is from the “Vienna Anti-Imperialist Co-ordination” in 2002, and the fifth is from the “Hamburg Autonomous Middle East Group” in 1989.
But I have falsified the quotes in one decisive respect: where “Zionist” or “Zionism” is mentioned, I have replaced these terms by “Jewish” and “Jewry”. The statement “Do not buy from Jews!”, however, is to be found in exactly those words in the Green Calendar, published by “Edition Sunshine” in 1982.
There is therefore clearly anti-semitism on the Left which manifests itself as anti-Zionism. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, it must be said, this was not a question of individual persons or individual groups, but of the mainstream Left. There were differences in degree, but the basic positions were the same everywhere. How is this anti-semitic anti-Zionism of the Left to be explained?
Read the rest of this entry »