[PEN-L:28191] WSJ reviews Marx 101

["Ellen Frank" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From today's Wall Street Journal:  

My Summer School
A Report from the 24th Annual "Intensive Study" of Marxism
By BRIAN MCGUIRE

In summer 1931, the journal Class Struggle noted an educational triumph:
"The classes of our workers school have been unusually successful. More
than 30 workers attended the class in volume one of Marx's Capital, the
most popular of them all." The tradition continues.
This past week, the Brecht Forum, on 27th Street in Manhattan, offered its
24th annual "intensive study" in Marxism -- for workers and anyone else
who was interested. An ad headed "Another World Is Possible!" noted that
Marxism can help us find "a political response that can confront the
interdependence of capital with racism, sexism, homophobia and
xenophobia." An ambitious goal, but then revolution was too.
On the first day, as 20-odd people filed into the forum's lobby, someone
muttered about Enron. That got the event's organizer, Lincoln Van
Sluytman, going about how "the movement" benefits from capitalist
pratfalls.
Taped to the wall above the coffee and bagel spread was a sign reading
"Evidence of Struggle." Beneath it were newspaper clippings of recent
uprisings around the world. A table was stacked with pamphlets and
articles on "Bush's Nuclear Threat," "Collateral Damage of War," "U.S.
Funds Israeli Occupation" and Danny Glover's views on human rights.
Anti-Capitalist Tool
The sessions over the four days -- led by New York-area professors and
activists -- took place in a large, windowless room with four round
tables. The walls were covered with photographs of oppressed peoples
around the world.
As people took their seats the first day, conversation turned again to
Enron. Mr. Van Sluytman declared that the members of the Brecht Forum
"believe very strongly that the thinking of Karl Marx provides an
essential tool that helps us look at these conditions of horror."
Corporate scandal -- along with the war on terrorism -- was a touchstone
at many sessions. It seemed to suggest that capitalism was finally
collapsing in on itself -- through internal crises and futile attempts at
global dominance. "Sept. 11 was a godsend for Bush," said Bill Tabb, a
professor at Queens College. "It was the occasion to totally militarize
the U.S. government. The corruption of this administration will
historically be the most corrupt we've had in our history."
But the discussion often covered more traditional, and predictable,
ground. Indeed, it was amazing how often the commentary drifted toward
cliché. Steve Brier, an associate provost at the Graduate Center of the
City University of New York, noted that through the Social History Project
he and his colleagues have been retelling history from "the bottom up."
"Since the '60s," he observed, "history has changed from being about great
white men." To which a woman remarked: "History is his story. Now we have
her story as well."
Before showing a video on American intervention in the Philippines in the
1890s, Mr. Brier stated that "America was born out of a colonial process."
When he mentioned that the Spanish brought smallpox to South America, one
woman asked whether they had done this deliberately. "I don't think we
have to look at it that way," he responded, to her evident disappointment.
The participants composed a motley cadre. The ages ranged widely. Some
eagerly identified themselves as Marxists. Others, like Dot Griss, a
retired director of community relations for United Cerebral Palsy of
Queens, were more like New Deal Democrats. "I came because frankly I am
really so upset with the state of the world that sometimes I want to go
out and scream," she said. "I consider myself a concerned citizen. I would
like universal health care." Most participants simply called themselves
leftists.
Factions weren't really in evidence, but disputes did break out. During a
heated discussion of racist elements within Marxism itself, Brenda
Stokely, chairman of the New York Labor Party, broke through a crescendo
of exasperated voices with the cry: "There should be free everything for
everybody!"
When the discussion moved toward the view that "a nicer capitalism" is
preferable to revolution, the more committed members of the group -- a
kind of priestly class -- would steer it back to Marx. Ms. Griss
complained about "not even being able to find Medicaid in the phone book,"
but Neil Smith, a professor of sociology at the City University of New
York, shot back that the group must learn to distinguish between "deep
human sympathy and socialist strategy." The important thing, he urged,
wiping sweat from his brow with a red bandana, was not to sympathize but
to organize.
In an effort to inspire all present to greater radicalism, Mr. Smith
offered a scenario. "OK. It's St. Petersburg in 1918. We've gotten rid of
all the nasty capitalists. What's our plan?" By way of response, a woman
wearing large plastic glasses announced that people today are "too
comfortable" to revolt. "I think not enough people are hurting," she said,
a bagel and coffee in front of her. "That's what the media tells you,"
answered a voice from across the room.
At this point, Mr. Smith warned that participants should not content
themselves with imagining alternatives to capitalism. Such alternatives
"are inevitable," he said. "I've never seen the U.S. ruling class so out
on a limb." But "there's nothing that says egalitarian socialism or a
feminist society, and not global military control, is the next step."
'Global Bourgeoisie'
Other lecturers were less gloomy. An articulate, if chirpy, young woman
named Lisa Featherstone gave an update on the anti-globalists who disrupt
meetings of the World Trade Organization or "wherever else global
bourgeoisie get together." She said that the slogan "another world is
possible" had become "ubiquitous" on campuses. Young people had even taken
to "anti-capitalist lifestyles." She cited the Anti-Authoritarian
Baby-Sitters Club, where "the fiercest looking men" give up a day of
protesting to stay at home and watch the kids.
At the mention of this novelty, an argument erupted in the back of the
room. Josh, a graduate student, said that the lives of the protesters were
shot through with what Marx referred to as the fetishism of commodities.
Their love of organic food, he implied, was greater than their love of the
oppressed who grow it. Ms. Featherstone conceded the point. She mentioned
that organic farming might actually be "more exploitative" than large,
mechanized farms, "because it requires more stooping."
Several people nodded their heads approvingly, happy to learn something
new. Finally, "Capital" had something fresh to teach! Another world is
possible indeed.
Mr. McGuire is a free-lance writer in New York.
Updated July 19, 2002