The Necessity of Political Organization (part 1: Internationalism)

This has been sitting in the "Edit" box too long. Rather than complete it, I'll go ahead and it put it out as yet another "Part 1".

There is nothing like a double-whammy of family obligations and personal illness to remind me of this simple fact: I can't do it alone. Neither can you. It doesn't matter who you are, how talented you are, or what "it" is--though this is especially true when discussing political action. Nothing requiring sustained effort and responsiveness to unfolding events can be the work of a single human being.

In the history of class society, the illusion of individual effort and accomplishment has been a mark of privileged status. Aristotle's view that the "the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered ... first in the places where men first began to have leisure," establishes the "priestly caste" as the precondition for pure knowledge. From a proletarian standpoint there can not yet be any pure knowledge. Knowledge that aims at life's necessities and pleasures emerges necessarily from a research process that takes account of its own material (physical, biological, economic and social) limitations, and thus one that to function and achieve its aims must be collective. The necessity of organization flows from materialism, which flows from the proletarian standpoint, not in a logical sense but as a matter of practical necessity.

In other words, the attempt represented by this blog to develop and expound the necessity of a new type of political organization in a rigorous manner, proceeding through fundamental principles, polemic, counterposition and empirical observation, was bound to fail because the author of these lines was doing it on his own. The author of these lines does not have the time and leisure to accomplish that, at least not at the pace demanded by political events. And if he did have the time and leisure, he would not have a social position such that his thoughts on the matter could be given any credence. It's a paradox that can only be surmounted by means of organization. But if the aim of organization is a new such organization, then to surmount it means to pull one's self up by one's own bootstraps, a la Baron von Munchhausen.

So the pretense to rigor has to go. To get something done, I'm just going to have make assertions, in the hopes that others can help fill in the gaps over time.

So the basic question is, What type of political organization is necessary today for political practice that would test the hypothesis that humanity will supersede capitalist society and with it all divisions of class?

The first characteristic that becomes clear is that it must be international.

Revolutionaries remain arrayed against a defined state, which remains in most instances a national state. There are, of course, significant exceptions to this: multi-national institutions (EU, ECB, IMF, World Bank, NATO, UN, as well as the several multinational corporations) that assume state or para-statal powers; forces of occupation; states that inhibit or prevent the formation of national identities, etc. Whether these phenomena are exceptions that prove the rule of the still-national structure of capitalist state power, or indices of transition to new forms of rule, remains to be seen. But even if we accept as given the hegemonically national character of capitalist rule, the syllogism that would derive from that a necessarily national character of the opposition to it is a false one.

For those leftists who regard national parties as necessary preconditions for an international, the usual reference point is the Second, Socialist International. Yet the reference contains its own refutation. The very formation of national parties took the international as a presupposition. Lars T. Lih has argued quite compellingly that Lenin understood himself not as a theoretician of a "party of a new type", but as an organizer of a party on the model exemplified by the German SPD under the leadership of Kautsky and Bebel. (I wrote a document several years ago for an internal LRP educational conference, on the First Three Internationals, that came to similar conclusions though with a different emphasis. At some point soon I'll likely publish it.) Yet the only reason why Lenin could dedicate himself might and main to building the RSDLP, and why he and Martov and Plekhanov and Trotsky and Luxemburg could argue so vociferously over how that was to be done, was because they all (with the signal exception of Luxemburg) regarded the SPD and the Bebel-Kautsky leadership as a model. National parties drew their sustenance from the International. The crisis of 1914 consisted precisely in the fact that the International proved not to have been as real as many of its protagonists had once believed.

By the early 20th century, a national orientation was already reactionary. If we regard the developing productive forces as harbingers of the changes to come, then we must recognize that they are even more so now. What ended in tragedy 100 years ago can only be a farce today. While each grouping of revolutionaries must confront the state which most immediately rules them, within class struggles that most often (though not always) take a national form, there is no compelling reason why they cannot learn from those engaged in more advanced struggles in other countries, or be able to point out the international horizons of struggle authoritatively to their fellow workers.

Most political organizations today, however, are not international. Either federations of local or national groupings (or local groupings pretending to be national), or pseudo-international projections of a single local or national sect. How to overcome that leads to the second necessary characteristic: That it must be organized based on an understanding of politics as a scientific endeavor. That will be the topic of the next post.

Thoughts in Honor of Yawm an-Nakba

Your "Order" is built on sand. By tomorrow the revolution, to your horror, will rise once more to the heavens with a clatter and proclaim with trumpet-blasts: I was, I am, I will be!

--Rosa Luxemburg, Die Ordnung herrscht in Berlin

The intifada proclaims, "I was, I am, I will be." The Palestinians proclaim, "We were, we are, we will be."

The State of Israel, the only state I've encountered whose citizens--well, those from the privileged grouping--refer to it un-self-consciously as "The State", as if its very existence were a Hegelian-type realization of the Absolute Idea, says, "You never were, you are not, and we will not let you become anything at all." On its side are its own riot police and soldiers, of course, its hate-filled demagogic windbags, and an overwhelming portion of its own citizenry, not to mention the capital and war materiel, measured in units of billions, from the U.S. But also the Egyptian Army, blocking the march to Gaza, also Khaled Meshal, political leader of Hamas, urging Egyptians to stand down, and thus implicitly also his guardian and sponsor, Bashar al-Assad, engaged in his own bloody crackdown on the people he rules.

The Party of Order is marshaling its ranks, which always makes for some strange juxtapositions. On the opposite side, with nothing to lose, are the great majority of Palestinians, battling against their ongoing, ever-mounting dispossession.

Yet what has had me dumbstruck for the better part of a week is how much of the so-called left can stand somewhere off to the side, nitpicking in the name of internationalism. The moment of shock came at that Historical Materialism conference when someone (my policy in talking about the conference will be name podium speakers, but not speakers from the audience unless they are public figures by virtue of their publication history) made the jaw-dropping statement, "There are no oppressed nations." In response, I pointed to the Palestinians as just one example of why this was an absurd statement, that fundamentally confused nations with states. However in the speakers' closing statements, Arya Zahedi solidarized with the claim, arguing that nations were formed by states as part of the process of capital accumulations, etc., etc.

At which point my only thought was, "What planet are you from?" As if the national consciousness of the Palestinians, their oppression by the State of Israel, or the national character of that oppression could be conjured out of existence by way of definitions or syllogisms.

Nations are indeed formed by states, yet often in ways that cannot be comprehended by scholasticism: The State of Israel, through the trauma of the Nakba, gave the experiential basis for the felt, shared sense of Palestinian nationhood. And yet its defining ideology, Zionism, in presenting the State as the state of all the world's Jews, negates the very possibility of an Israeli nation, as pointed out by the Internationalist Socialist League (scroll down to the section entitled "Are the Israelis a Nation?"). A paradox? Only for a scholastic, not a Marxist.

I came to an understanding of the significance of the struggle for Palestinian self-determination through autobiographical contingency: Like many Jews of my generation, there was no way I could attain to internationalist consciousness without negating Zionism. And given the depth of my former, infantile Zionism, that could not take place without significant historical study and a deep understanding of Marxist approaches to the "national question." Yet it has a universal significance as a standing refutation of any scholastic, definitional approach to understanding the politics of class struggle. In a nutshell, as the "Russian question" once was (and still is in some respects), the "Palestinian question" is a standing counterexample to most of what passes for Marxism, a living example of its ideological (non-scientific) status. If a "Marxist" cannot proclaim, without reservation, discomfort, stipulations or footnotes, "Palestine will be free," he is no Marxist. And if he can, but has no functional strategy for how Palestine will be free, then he still is no Marxist.

For the better part of a week, in the midst of an unusually brutal set of workday concerns, I have also been agonizing over how to speak of the peculiar absurdity mentioned above. The Palestinian masses, with what seems to be shaping up into a third intifada, are once again pointing out the way.

To translate Luxemburg's proclamation in a different way, into a different language:

Thawra hatta an-nasr!

Is Marxist Economics a Science? (Part 1)

The answer is: No. Sorry, guys.

More seriously, there are a few distinct questions embedded in this one. The first is quasi-ontological. Is there really any such thing as Marxist economics? Now, I am not one to rule out the existence of a phenomenon on the basis of definitions and syllogisms, and I won't do that in this case either. There are people who call themselves Marxists who were trained in and/or teach in economics departments, or who otherwise publish work which they refer to as "economics" or, in a conscious turn of an old phrase, "political economy". In that sense, there are Marxist economists, and the work they publish can be called, if they insist, "Marxist economics" or "Marxian political economy".

But the fact remains that Marx did not refer to his own work as "political economy," but as the "critique of political economy." By which he meant the historicization of the fundamental conceptions of political economy, in order to demonstrate the limits of their ability to describe capital's existence, coming-to-be and hypothesized passing away. Such a step was necessary to move from the realm of ideology--the eternalization of bourgeois relations of production--into science. The purpose of this argument is not to ultimatistically insist that any Marxist interested in the domain of economic relationships refer to her or his work as forming part of the corpus of the "critique of political economy"--the phrase is a mouthful, and the mere avowal of its importance does not make the underlying work true and accurate any more than extensive citations of Marx can make a work Marxist. But it is to say that unless such work operates with the methods and spirit of critique--that is, the examination of economic phenomena in their genesis, immanent contradictions, antagonistic relations and ultimate perishability--then it is neither Marxist nor scientific.

The question then becomes whether there is any such work taking place, whether under the heading of "Marxist economics," "Marxian political economy," or (as Sy Landy would joke to express a justifiable impatience with debates over nomenclature) "Herbie": And to that I would give, based on a sampling of the work I saw presented at the Historical Materialism conference, a provisional "Yes."

There remains another question, however, namely whether the work currently being carried on in the spirit of the critique of political economy is being carried out as a collective effort, in which new investigations either build upon or explicitly and evidentially contradict prior ones and, while there is extensive debate over various questions of interpretation, there are shared methodological approaches to the identification, extraction and analysis of key data. And here, based on the same sampling, as well as recent readings and attendance at other recent events, lead me to the conclusion--still provisional, but with a bit more probability--"No. It has not for some time, and not yet."

On this basis, I would be tempted to hypothesize that the critique of political economy has not been carried on as a collective, non-ideological, theoretical and fact-seeking endeavor for quite some time. The tipping point may well be pinpointable, to the arrest by the Stalinists of I. I. Rubin, though that's an even more tentative hypothesis.

Nonetheless, when I go to left events that are focused on theoretical questions, I tend to focus on the sessions labeled as having to do with "Marxist economics," because I find the topics treated interesting, and I have hope that the presenters and participants are animated by a scientific, truth-seeking spirit. That I am often disappointed in the latter hope gets weighed against the times when I am surprised by its fulfillment.

As an example of the phenomena that lead to disappointment, I will point to the seemingly endless debates on how to calculate the historical rate of profit in U.S. capitalism. A number of scholars have made recent attempts to calculate it. They differ sharply on the statistics to use in the calculations and the way to analyze those statistics, and the results are a variety of different historical curves. For the moment I will bracket the question of who's right and who's wrong in the various methodological debates, and just present a few of the resulting figures:

That comes from "The Crisis of the Early 21st Century: A Critical Review of Alternative Interpretations - Preliminary draft," by Gerard Duménil (who spoke at the conference to present on the questions covered in that paper, and whose talk I attended) and Dominique Lévy.

That one is from Anwar Shaikh, The First Great Depression of the 21st Century, who was not at this conference, but apparently had had a bit of a debate with Duménil in the same venue the previous year.

That comes from “The Destruction of Capital” and the Current Economic Crisis by Andrew Kliman--he did give a talk at the conference, though in a different session than Duménil, which I did not attend. I heard from some who did that his presentation was very similar to the one he gave at last November's conference on Economic Crisis and Left Responses.

I would have liked to have also included a chart by Fred Moseley, but encountered a few technical problems. Follow that link, and you'll find a good number of papers and presentations.

The point of this display is to indicate that while there may be some common trends indicated by all the graphs, there are significant enough variances between them to show significant differences of either underlying statistics, methodology or both. And yet they purport to be describing the same thing. Examination of the papers of these various authors will show that this is indeed the case, with debate over such matters as whether or not to subtract any taxes from the nominator (mass of profits), and if so which ones.

Nor can the questions simply be settled with an appeal to the text of Capital, to find out, "what did Marx think?" That's a necessary task if what you are doing is taking Marx's definition of the rate of profit, and analyzing historical data to see if bears out certain key predictions of Marx's, like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. And that at least is one of the tasks that most of these authors purport to be taking on. But it is not the sole scientific task at stake. There remains the question of whether Marx's definition of the rate of profit was correct, not least because he gave several distinct formalizations of his definition depending upon the context (e.g., one at a single-enterprise level within a single cycle of production, another at an industry-wide scale in a process of simple reproduction, then it gets more complicated when we start talking about accumulation, etc.) And let us not forget that anything from Volumes 2 or 3 was unfinished business at the time of his death, and had to be worked over by Engels to make it at all suitable for publication. Such formalizations are insightful, necessary, an excellent starting point for the examination of the realization of surplus value in the circulation process, the distribution of surplus value among the propertied classes, etc., but only that: A starting point.

But this gets to the question of the purpose served by Marxist academics (and I include in this latter phrase anyone who, by virtue of their social position, even if they do not have a formal affiliation with an academic institution, has the training and leisure to devote a preponderance of their waking hours to research). If one takes as a starting point the view that the proletariat, by virtue of its position within the class struggle, is uniquely positioned to see through the fetishistic relations of capital to understand the real social relations beneath, then a scientific understanding of social phenomena is impossible without a proletarian movement. Without a proletarian movement, there can be no Marxist science, no critique of political economy. But by virtue again of their exploitation by capitalists, atomized proletarians, without the assistance of an organization, cannot create the time or replicate the training needed to crunch the numbers to quantify, visualize and test theories against their underlying phenomena. (By virtue of my white-collar training, then with a three-volume set of Capital, a high-speed internet connection, some trial and error with public-access datasets, and a copy of Excel, I could probably produce something that looked like one of the above charts. But I'd either have to quit my job or stop sleeping for a while. And it wouldn't look as good as it would if I had access to SPSS.)

The role of the academic, then, if Marxist, is as a technician. That is, not determine the problems or the methods, but conduct the kind of heavy analysis toward the problems that they are well-suited to perform. In so doing, they can also point out possible problems emergent from the data that otherwise might not have been noticed.

There is no such science because there is not yet the type of proletarian movement that could authoritatively give direction to such technicians. It is hardly the academics' fault qua academics (though, to the extent that some of them also attempt to function as political leaders, they do bear their share of responsibility as well). And in the absence of that, the best they can do is stumble, happenstance, into the kinds of interesting problems that a renewed proletarian movement, based on a genuine science of revolution, would be able to investigate, and practically settle.

And so the next installment of this essay (which may or may not be preceded by installments of other essays in the works), will do that, discussing some of the interesting problems whose presentations I happened to stumble across at the conference--and then, time permitting, some of the not-so-interesting blind alleys.

Lit Review: "The Socialist" on Child Care

The Socialist is the print magazine of the Socialist Party USA. It's a rather slight publication, sixteen pages total, with articles capped at 1,250 words apiece. Even some of the shorter entries on this blog would fall afoul of that word limit. Thus I hadn't previously paid much attention to it. Nor do the supporters of that organization tend to call much attention to it; I got it only because a young man was cantering through the May Day crowd at Union Square, barely looking people in the eyes and thrusting the magazine toward their hands rather randomly, seemingly hoping for someone to grab.

Yet it was the only publication I got at that event which I made a point of skimming while still there, rather than waiting until I got home. And the main reason was that it had two articles on a topic which I have never seen treated in print in print in a leftist publication, yet which occupies a good portion of my daily mental effort: child care. (Please note in fairness that I have not said "never been" but "never seen." Anyone familiar with other treatments of the topic, please link to or cite them.)

I am trying not to get too autobiographical in this project, but I do think it's necessary to state that I think about this a great deal because I have a young daughter. Young enough that the political economy of the issue has a routine impact on my life and hers, and also the fact that my child is a girl colors my thoughts on it: All her non-familial caregivers have, without exception, been women, and when a given occupation is so visibly gendered it cannot but have an effect on her own perceptions of how the world is structured, and how that structure governs her possibilities and horizons.

Why not have this be a routine topic of revolutionary propaganda, alongside such currently routine topics as unions, wars, immigration or access to higher education? Is it that child care is only a particular concern of a "section" of the working class? If anyone made that argument in earnest, then I would have to reply: Bullshit. Not only will most working-class people have to deal with it at some point as parents, but we ought not to overlook that all people--workers, too!--begin lives as children, and live within a horizon that is extensively shaped by the care arrangements they experienced as children. This should be a trivial observation, but it's not: Too many leftists fall prey to the rationalist conceit that their audience consists of disembodied consciousnesses, whose histories, emotions and current interests can and should be placed behind something like what the liberal philosopher John Rawls called "the veil of ignorance."

The adults of a class that would meekly accept, or ignore in favor of supposedly "more important" matters, or worse yet complicitly perpetrate the physical, emotional and intellectual brutalization of its own children would be in no fit state to liberate themselves or anyone else. A struggle for emancipation is a struggle for the future and thus, definitionally, a struggle for the interests of the youngest. And factually, such struggles often begin conceptualized as such. Any "particularization" of the issue of child care presumes, more or less consciously, its privatization as a "family" (read: female) responsibility, and is thus essentially sexist.

So my first reaction to the articles was simply to be happy that they existed. But the two articles were rather varied in their qualities. The first, "Why Unions Are Good for Children," is by Kristin Schall; the second, "Expanding What We Child Care Workers Know About Empowerment," by Susan Dorazio. (I was somewhat disappointed that both authors were women; the de facto delegation of certain topics to women is a common sign of tokenism. It's better than having the issues ignored entirely, but it's not optimal. I'll be most impressed when I see men besides me also raising the question, without being prodded or reminded.)

The thesis of Schall's article is stated clearly in the title and argued relentlessly throughout, backed up with established facts and tight reasoning. To sum up, the early childhood education sector is hardly unionized at all, with low wages, low-to-non-existent standards of training, and long hours, resulting in conditions that are exhausting and burn-out inducing for the staff and dreadful for the children. If that were all there were to it, it would be flawless.

Unfortunately, there is a recurrent thread of elitism in her arguments. She notes with frustration that "it is possible to work in this field possessing only a high school diploma and thus be without even a rudimentary understanding of child development and psychology." She notes that parents able to pay very high fees can place their children in accredited centers that "employ qualified teachers who have studied or are in the process of studying early childhood education." And her proposed solution, that public schools be extended down to infancy, is touted as giving young children "the same benefits of highly qualified teachers that children in kindergarten through 12th grades are afforded."

It is this kind of elitism that has helped set up teachers and their unions as targets for the populist resentment that is being so well deployed by both Democratic and Republican politicians. Its underlying fallacy was obvious to me, and offensive, as it would be to many a working-class person. (And here, I must lapse again into anecdote and autobiography.) Frankly, my mother with her GED, though by no means a flawless caregiver, had a much better "understanding of child development and psychology" than many--no, most--of the "highly qualified teachers" whom I encountered in my K-12 education. While many child care workers need better training--an assertion which as a parent I would readily affirm--her argument is undermined by the presumption that competence, training and formal education are synonyms, a presumption that "is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society." After all, "the educator must himself be educated."

The very notion that such an extension of public schooling is "the simple solution," as Schall presents it, seemingly so sane and realist, is completely abstracted from the very real situation of public schools and teachers under an all-sided political attack. (And that leaves aside the valid question of whether the school as an institution, keeping children and their putative education cloistered away from adult productive activity, is compatible with a socialist understanding of human development.) To attempt to do so under capitalism, with the requisite training, would necessarily divert a tremendous mass of human labor away from value production, i.e., from the activities that make profits for capital. Such an eminently sensible vision is purely utopian if not coupled with any notion of the revolutionary transformation of society as a whole.

Even with a revolution, the care of the very young will remain a knotty, persistent problem, not susceptible to day-after miracles. To transform what, in value terms, is clearly a little appreciated task into one of the highest of shared social responsibilities will require the widespread activation of human personality, and engagement of many who never would have conceived of it as a vocation in that shared labor. And we will hardly have the time or resources to enroll all those people in Master's programs in child psychology. How to make that change? As Karl said, "The materialist doctrine that people are products of circumstances and education, and that, therefore, changed people are products of changed circumstances and changed education, forgets that it is people who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The joining together of the changing of circumstances, and of human activity or self-transformation, can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice." While fighting for key partial gains--unionization, living wages, better training, better working conditions--such struggles can only succeed if made a conscious element of the human self-transformation that can only come through revolutionary practice.

If Schall makes a strong argument for a limited and thus ultimately self-defeating perspective, Dorazio makes a meandering case for what seems like a more global outlook on the problems of child care workers. Addressing her case to fellow child care workers, her argument seems to be that child care workers can learn from activism, and activists can learn from child care workers. But this begs the questions, what kind of child care, and what kind of activism? The recurrent valorization of such phrases as "bottom up", "leaderless group" and "diversity of tactics," makes certain preferences clear. But they are nothing more than that: Preferences. And subjective preferences, as opposed to observation of the ways that leadership is exercised (and abused), established and contested, can only lead to metaphysical nonsense-statements like, "leadership springs from within." No, it is a social relationship, that is structured and conditioned within any given setting by the full range of social relationships that govern our interactions.

Do activists often reproduce and reinforce alienated social relationships that in other contexts we rebel against--or that we would expect and want our own children to chafe against? Yes, and if this is part of the point Dorazio is trying to make, she has one. But this is a phenomenon I have observed at least as often from champions of "bottom up" and "diversity" as from the dreaded "vanguardists."

Indicative of that, she makes several insistent points as to what child care workers "must" do: e.g., "take the time and make the effort to connect with individuals, organizations, and cultural and political projects that offer and model alternatives to the status quo," or "take an active role in the global drive for the creation of, and full participation in, truly democratic systems and structures where human rights and social justice for all workers and communities come first." The hortatory tone is recurrent, and overbearing, and takes little note of the objective conditions that Schall describes so well in her article: That many child care workers work in small home settings, and/or work long hours, with little training and education, and thus little opportunity to take the lead as she so vehemently urges. Misrepresentation of the question of leadership feeds right into evasion of confrontation of the leaderships that do exist in order to prevent the formation of new struggles and alliances. And thereby, the responsibility is turned back where it rests the least easily: On the shoulders of the atomized, individual worker.

Again, the Socialist Party is to be commended for having leaders who consider this to be a worthy topic of consideration. The commendation can only go so far, however, when the solutions proposed lead to dead-end politics.

Revenge of the Brand-New Same-Old

Living in New York City today leaves a bad aftertaste, a foul belch of ten-year-old bilge assaulting the tongue and nostrils with the stench of well-rotted patriotism.

As for the broader political context, others have beaten me to their keyboards. As Dave Stockton of the League for the Fifth International put it a bit too understatedly:

A 2002 analysis by The Guardian estimated that as many as 20,000 Afghans died in 2001 as an indirect result of the initial US air strikes and ground invasion. According to the UN Population Division as of mid-December 2009 it is estimated that in occupied Afghanistan violent deaths total 1.1 million.

A secret US government tally puts the Iraqi (civilian) death toll from 2003 to 2010 at over 100,000.

It is obvious that war criminals of this sort are not entitled to sit in judgement over the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

Martin Suchanek of the same tendency says, "The revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East have shown a real alternative to all shades of Islamism and individual terrorism: the mobilisation of the workers and peasants, urban poor, youth and the women across all religious barriers."

Again, this is too understated. The revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia showed just how irrelevant Al-Qa'ida had become. The U.S. has just given it, or more precisely, the international constellation of Bin Laden's imitators, a new lease on political life.

As'ad Abu Khalil gets a good deal right:

The question remains whether there is any political significance to his death. It is clear that Al-Qa`idah has largely been put out of commission since the US invasion of Afghanistan. It is clear that Bin Laden, and even maybe Al-Dhawahiri, don't have operational links with their followers. It is clear that many of Bin Laden's lieutenants were either captured or killed and that he lost the nucleus of the organization. It is also clear that a small (terrorist in this case) organization can inflict a lot of harm on civilians, if that is what it wants to do. But it is also clear that the danger of Al-Qa`idah after Sep. 11 was transferred to copy cats: groups and gangs that don't have direct links with Bin Laden and his lieutenants but who are inspired by the deeds of the mother organization, so to speak. But what is not yet acknowledged here in the US is that Bin Laden is a product of horrific US policies in the Cold War: of their alliance with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The people in Pakistan and Afghanistan would be relieved today: not because they hated Bin Laden (many do sympathize with him only to spite the US), but because scores of Afghans and Pakistanis have been killed over the years during the campaign to get and kill Bin Laden.... Bin Laden made life more difficult for all Muslims (and for all if you consider the travel effects of Sep. 11): my mother hates him for what he did to the image of Muslims worldwide, not to mention his callous justifications of the murder of civilians (Muslims including). US is desperate for a victory and this one will be a chance, although the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going terribly for the US. Obama yesterday basically signed the death sentence of the Pakistani president for thanking him for his role. How dumb is that? Even if he thought to falsely claim that the US did not violate Pakistani sovereignty near the capital of Pakistan. Public opinion surveys will soon give a tremendous boost to Obama, who may have increased his chances for re-election. I mean, no one in the Republican camp can now accuse him of pacifism or of reluctance to bomb and kill. Obama has proven that he can outdo Bush, in wars and bombings and killing, etc. Tell that to those who voted for him. On the Muslim side, I can report to you that wild conspiracy theories are already circulating on Twitter and Facebook and Arab websites: it will be like the conspiracy theories about Sep. 11. People are saying that either he was not killed, or that the US had him for a long time, or that he was dead even on Sep. 11. Those unfounded conspiracy theories trouble me: because we--as leftists--need to distinguish between crazy and non-crazy conspiracy theories. So in sum, not much will change in the world after this announcement because Al-Qa`idah has been largely weakened since Sep. 11. Ayman Adh-Dhawhiri has no chance of reviving the fortunes of Al-Qa`idah: he not only has to protect himself but he has the charisma of a cucumber and the speaking skills of Sa`d Hariri (and he is as boring as the latter).

"Not much will change in the world," indeed, but for the U.S., that itself would be a victory, if the prediction is borne out. When the world has been stubbornly, rapidly changing, the best that those who enjoy power can hope for is to "stand athwart history, yelling Stop." There is no more "radical conservative" today than the president of hope and change.

May Day (International Workers' Day)

This is what May Day looked and sounded like in Cairo:

(Sorry, non-Arabic speakers: I only understand enough to be inspired, not enough to translate.) For context, Al-Jazeera has done a story on how the revolution essentially started among the workers in Mahalla (and this is the English version):

This is what it looked and sounded like in Tunis:

(Note the pictures of Stalin brandished by what must be the Communist Workers Party of Tunisia (PCOT). There is a woman identified as belonging to a "Socialist Workers Party"--don't know if this is a new grouping that I hadn't previously heard of, or a mistranslation of the PCOT's name.)

And in Casablanca, Morocco, it's a bit rainy, but loud:

Apparently, in the Maldives (a small island nation in the Indian Ocean), it is day two of some volatile protests over skyrocketing commodity prices:

In Kenya, the Trade Unions are calling for 60% wage increases, and a general strike in 20 days:

In Hong Kong, the focus is also on the minimum wage:

In New York, I attended the Union Square May Day demonstration, with various immigrant workers' groups and dominated, from the podium, by the constellation around the Workers World Party, not the rival Foley Square demonstration with official union support. Left groups that were also visibly present at the one I attended (in order of my seeing them):

• Internationalist Group (hard to miss, with a huge banner, a decent-sized contingent, and several placards)
• Anakbayan
• League for the Revolutionary Party
• Revolutionary Communist Party
• Spartacist League
• Socialist Alternative
• Freedom Socialist Party
• Socialist Party
• International Socialist Organization
• Socialist Core (new U.S. franchise of the LIT, focused around the PSTU of Brasil)
• Bolshevik Tendency (after a hiatus, they're once again active in New York)
• Kasama Project (known only because I asked one of their supporters if he could spare a red flag, and he said they were for his contingent, so I asked "which contingent?")
• Freedom Road Socialist Organization / OSCL (that one, not the other one, with a rare banner to identify themselves)
• MIUCA - El Acción por el Cambio (Dominican left group that had decent chants and better drumming)

Since the purpose of this blog is not Leftist Trainspotting, I will note a conversation of political significance: The BTer I spoke with, to his credit, pressed me for a quick summation of why I'm no longer with the LRP. It's not a bad thing to be able to sum such things up in one or two sentences. It was only after we ended our conversation that a summation, however, occurred to me: That much of the left, LRP included, treats the question of political organization in a religious manner, not a scientific one, and does what it does on the basis of varied understandings of a tradition of choice.

A realization I had, ironically enough, on the closest day a Marxist materialist has to the High Holidays. Elaborations on this to come.

Work and family obligations have disrupted my self-imposed weekly schedule for the installments of the Badiou critique. Moreover, I am going to read the literature I picked up today, and to the extent that there is anything worth commenting upon, will likely do so. This will likely prevent me from posting more reading notes on Mészáros any time soon, either. And I will be at the Historical Materialism conference next weekend. Apologies in advance.