Political Ecology

[Keaney Michael <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Leo Casey writes:

This notion that those who work within the orthodox Marxist tradition have a

special, intimate relationship to political praxis, and that those who work
on the theoretical terrain of post-Marxism and post-modernism are alienated
from political praxis, more taken with the rhetoric flourishes of the theory

than the urgencies of the political moment, is an old tired trope that
doesn't bear up to minimal scrutiny.

=====

MK: I haven't argued this. And what is "orthodox Marxism" anyway? None of
those I have cited can be characterised as "orthodox Marxists". And they are
only _examples_. My points were, firstly, that good, single-issue causes
(like the green movement) are open to capture by less than progressive
forces without a grounding in internationalist, class-based political
economy. You'll notice I did not restrict that qualification to Marx or
Marxism. I often use the term Marxian to indicate an openness to fresh
insights from outside the Marxist tradition that can usefully augment and
develop those from inside. Secondly, I do not doubt the sincerity and
commitment of those engaged in political work who take as their inspiration
the work of pomo theorists. It is the practical impact of such work that I
am concerned with, and its negligible impact can be traced, not to the
personal failings of its practitioners, but to the theory informing its
practitioners. And I have sat in too many inconsequential seminars listening
to "clever" prattle about nothing in particular to be impressed with a lot
of pseudo-profundity masquerading as the "new politics". It's a million
miles from the concerns of those supposedly central to the concerns of its
propagators -- as even minimal scrutiny would reveal. It is not
anti-intellectualist to point this out and suggest more promising
alternatives. Anyone wading through the works of Jim O'Connor or Nicos
Poulantzas is not going to be in for an easy ride. But I think they offer
good examples of praxis. Are they "orthodox Marxists"? I don't think so.

=====

LC:  In my original post I mentioned three individuals/sets of paradigmatic
influential post-Marxists -- Hardt & Negri, Zizek, Laclau & Mouffe. Even a
cursory look at the biographies of these folks indicate a long term
engagement with political praxis in a number of different contexts. And one
can add many more examples of this type, such as the notorious [to some]
Judith Butler.

=====

MK: With the exception of Hardt and Negri, I haven't
attacked/questioned/doubted the works of those you mention above. Zizek, in
fact, from what I've read (admittedly not much), is interesting. He penned a
very good piece on Vaclav Havel for the London Review of Books a couple of
years back. As for Hardt and Negri, I await correction as regards my
impression that they effectively sanction deforestation and genocide in the
service of burger restaurants worldwide.

=====

LC:  At the same time, some of the very figures cited as exemplary Marxists
in
this and other similar posts, such as Sweezy of the MR crowd, have no
political praxis other than their writing and journal production. And if
there ever was an academic who separated himself from political organizing,
Russell Jacoby would have to fit the bill. But he says nasty things about
other academics, so why not throw him into the mess we throw at today's
target to see how much will stick?

=====

MK: I agree with you re Jacoby. He's good up to a point, but beyond that
point it's rather destructive, and he seems to have no idea of where we
might go from here. Plus, "The End of Utopia" is his third book devoted to
knocking the pretensions of academic leftists. Two might have been enough,
except that he is right to highlight the dangerous discrediting of utopian
ideals by the TINA crowd. Harvey Kaye has written on this, and I've got a
review coming out in Critical Sociology on both Jacoby and Zygmunt Bauman
you might be interested in. As for Sweezy and the MR crowd, their writing
and journal production serves a most useful purpose, and given what they
have had to go through simply to do it, that's praxis enough for me.

=====

LC:  These across the board attacks on individuals, based on the means by
which
they make a living, are not political arguments, and certainly not an
example
of class analysis; they are a species of ad hominem arguments. They
demonstrate nothing, other than the lack of a more persuasive argument on
the
part of those who yield them as blunt weapons. Yesterday, Woods and Brenner
were the bete noire, so all of their mistaken views are attributed to the
fact that they were -- gasp -- university professors, albeit of a rather
orthodox Marxian variety.  Today, the post-Marxists are the bete noire, so
all of their mistaken views are attributed to the fact that they are
university professors, albeit of a most heterodox variety. God help those
who
owned factories, such as Engels, if he were to get in the way. The only
thing
that is common in all of this most crude class reductionism is the inability

to actually engage an argument on the part of those who fling about  these
characterizations.

=====

MK: As I hope the above has clarified, I am not attacking _individuals_.
Sitting in my office surrounded by the paraphernalia of higher education I
do not issue blanket condemnations of university professors. Sometimes Louis
P.'s comments in this connection are exasperating. But he's right to finger
those elements of academia that deserve to be condemned. I agree with Jim
Devine that while academia pumps out a lot of effluent, it is still a source
of good work. The problem is not academia _per se_, but rather the dialectic
involving personal ambition and advancing the progressive cause.
Anti-intellectualism is destructive, but so, in its own way, are the
scholasticism-for-its-own-sake and publish-or-be-damned logics that afflict
many who otherwise claim solidarity with popular movements. Mind you, the
corporatisation of higher education that proceeds apace everywhere is a
constant reminder of just how compromised all of us are. I resist it to the
best of my ability, as I'm sure others here do too. But, as Jim D. says,
it's difficult without a mass movement. Interestingly, there are people on
the Left here (Finland) who sense a revival of 1960s style activism. The
global anticapitalist movement is a promising development. However, as Jim
O'C. has repeatedly written in CNS, it encompasses a whole spectrum of
political views, and requires some sort of theoretically-grounded
leadership.

BTW, many of your characterisations belong to the ad hominem variety. Maybe
you shouldn't presume my membership of any sect or grouping with which you
may have had battle in the past. And instead of haranguing me for a supposed
inability to argue, why not offer some definitive refutations of my points,
rather than wave the CVs of pomo theorists.

Michael K.