File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/97-04-23.123, message 17


Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 07:07:45 GMT
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-TH: RMC criticism of GGMS


The Revolutionary Marxist Collective at SUNY has made a 
criticism of the conference organised at SUNY for April
18 1997 by the Graduate Group in Marxist Studies.

The original post of 2nd April had many formatting codes
embedded in it and was not reposted in a more widely readable form
until 13th April.  

Like others I find the language and discourse difficult to 
penetrate but the opening statement is a pretty clear challenge.

>>
The "Between Capitalism and Democracy" conference at SUNY-Buffalo (April
18, 1997) held by the Graduate Group in Marxist Studies (GGMS) is an
occasion to place the left academy in a world-historical context and
examine some of its practices that have made it the most trusted ally of
capitalism now.  The theatre that passes as left at SUNY-Buffalo,
should not be treated simply as an amusing but irrelevant side-show.  The
performative left is representative of the academic left in the US today.
As such it requires a sustained analysis.
<<


I find Brad Rothrock's arguments the most concise and comprehensible
defence of this position although I would ask him not to post in 
capitals, as it deafens me.

>>
To everyone so disconcerted about this type of discourse, I suggest 
you check out what's going on theoretically in the dominant academy these 
days.  However complex (and verbose) this type of theory may be (queer 
theory, poststructuralism, post-colonialism, dominant cultural studies, 
etc), it poses the greatest threat to Marxist theory (in the academy) 
through its occlusion of a historically and materially based understanding 
of the social totality.  

THE MARXIST COLLECTIVE AT BUFFALO IS NOT ADVOCATING THIS TYPE OF
THEORY, BUT ATTEMPTING TO TAKE UP THE TERMS OF WHAT PASSES FOR
"THEORY" IN THE DOMINANT ACADEMY AND SUPERSCEDE THIS WITH A DIALECTICAL,
HISTORICAL, AND MATERIALIST UNDERSTANDING!  IT IS A FORM OF COMBAT WITH THE 
LATEST BOURGEOIS IDEALISM PUT OUT BY THE LATE CAPITALIST KNOWLEDGE INDUSTRY.  
AS ONE IMPORTANT SITE OF STRUGGLE (I.E. THE ACADEMY IN ITS CURRENT FORM 
INTERPELLATES MANY OF THE FUTURE WORKERS AND MANAGERS) AGAINST CAPITALISM, 
IT IS NECESSARY TO FIGHT THIS SHIT WITH AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF COMPLEXITY AND 
RIGOR! 
<<<


A later post by Brad, unfortunately also in capitals, puts a longer
reasoned argument in what I recognised as Althusserian language.

I have not read any of this thread until today, skimming over 
the exchanges, because I did not understand them, and surprised 
at the escalating heat. I write from an assumption that I do not
understand, certainly fully, what is going on but some issues
seem clearer to me than others.

This challenge by RMC to GGMS both at SUNY, cannot be ruled out
of order on theoretical grounds. Its form is a challenge. 
It confronts and it expects emotions to be raised, and it then 
amplifies the drama, repeating the word "panic" in the thread title,
so the echoes of this word reverberate in cyberspace with each
escalating thread using the same title. 

RMC seems to have a theoretical justication for this: the 
moderate academic left are at best reformist. Further that 
what they are doing is going through the motions of a performance,
they are "performative" rather than "reformist". This is best exposed
by a critique that challenges the theatrical nature of this, as 
a way of exposing the underlying unreality. The challenge itself
is highly theatrical, for reasons it will defend as theoretically 
valid. It interests and engages the audience by confrontation.

They enter onto the stage of a disussion list which already has its
own culture, and treat it as a stage with an exciting provocative
entrance, deliberately ignoring what culture may be thought to 
have existed before now. The defenders of that culture rally
to resist the alien invading culture, and in the course of this
confrontation are forced to examine whether that old culture
is itself performative or reformist. A few voices are raised that
the challengers have a point after all.

At first arrogantly treating the others as a passive audience
the hope is to draw them in as participatory actors playing up
and playing with the contradiction between players and audience.

I do not think a forum such as this or a conference organised 
by a body like GGMS, can avoid periodic challenges that it is
just conciliating with the prevailing hegemony of bourgeois
ideas in the academic world. That contradiction is inevitable
and will inevitably get expressed from time to time. It is open
to each of us to decide how surprised we wish to be when
it surfaces. One option for example is to be pro-active:
publish an alternative critique or evaluation of the 
April 18th conference.

There is also a contradiction between youth and age. We need to 
get better at handling this in marxism space.

There is also a fundamental theme of whether reformists or moderates
are actually opportunists, revisionists, the main enemy in the progessive
movement, and "the most trusted ally of capitalism now". This 
last phrase does not depend on the more recent culture used by the
RMC but is an echo of standard positions promoted by Lenin.

My own view on the contradictions about marxism and the academic
world is that middle elements should not be the main focus of 
attack even though they almost certainly compromise in a thousand
different ways with capitalism, and can be argued to be proponents
of bourgeois ideology within marxism. Secondly we cannot ask marxists
not to get involved in the technical language, concepts and 
discourse of their own speciality. 

In posing the question how left wing academics should indeed engage 
in reality, it would be
helpful to have some discussion about the political or industrial
issues that it would be reasonable to expect progressive 
academics to take up. Issues of tenure have surfaced from time to 
time and in the US system graduate students and untenured professors
appear to me to have a very hard time, considerable insecurity and
to be almost certainly exploited. 

We could all agree that in abstract a fully
revolutionary ideological challenge to the hegemony of 
capitalist culture in the academic world should not compromise
strategically, but I do not understand what is so unprincipled
about compromising tactically to unite with others to achieve some
reforms. 

The contradiction between bourgeois and 
proletarian culture exists in the purest form
only in abstract, and can exist only in abstract in this pure
form. To represent this in a confrontation that is in essence
theatrical is startling and thought provoking, but does not help to 
engage with the reality that it claims to seek to address.

But practice will tell, how far RMC on the one hand and GGMS
on the other get at Buffalo, and how far the ideas and 
practice get in the world at large. This will remain
the case whether or not there is some (even more explicit)
theatrical event at the conference on 18th April. It
would be interesting if RMC would want to tell us
their tactics ahead of the event, or whether the element
of surprise will be indispensible.

Anyway on this list we are not obliged to fight with RMC even 
theatrically, nor to engage in uncomradely exchanges as if to prove 
that they do not have any relevant point of view at all. Clearly they 
do have a carefully thought out point of view. No one need feel forced to 
adopt it, unless somehow it gets under our own skin. Nor to engage 
with it unless they want to.

Chris Burford



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005