Keith Hart on Sun, 13 Nov 2016 01:55:28 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> What is the meaning of Trump's victory? |
There are clearly two tendencies on nettime at this time and many strung out between them. With some overlaps they are the two threads on Trump, started by Alex and Brian respectively. That is why I posted on Brian's. There is more I can relate to there, even though I don't expect to agree totally with my old friend Brian or him with me. Sameness-in-difference moves history, Hegel thought, and even poor mad Max Weber used similar arguments to moderate the polarised Methodenstreit (Battle over Methods) about economics of the late 19th century between Berlin and Vienna. We would not be interested in the Greeks if they were the same as us, he wrote, and we couldn't understand them, if they were completely different. I liked the exchange between Frederic and Brian a lot and I hope it continues. It made me feel more at home here than sometimes. It reminded me of my reaction to Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, the movie about the boys who shot up kids in their school. Moore grew up in Flint Michigan, a city that is plagued by the worst case of racism in the state and maybe for some distance beyond that. It goes way back and deep. It was not created by neoliberalism, but probably exacerbated by it. I don't know about that.� It needs a historical perspective, anyway. Moore asks, why is it that Canadians have as many guns as Americans (this may have changed lately), but kill people a whole lot less often? He takes a historical perspective, but it is literally a cartoon version. He says that Americans kill so many as a direct result of the racist origins of the country, rooted in slavery and fear of negro revolts. Two books published by CLR James in 1938: The Black Jacobins about the Haitian revolution and A History of Negro (now Pan-African) Revolt, which takes the story forward via the US in the early 19th century and the civil war to the imminent prospects for Africans to overthrow colonial empire. He told Trotsky he had got racism in the US all wrong and hated the duplicitous attitude of the Stalinsts (who were shooting at him in 30s Paris when he was researching the Haitian revolution). He wrote a text in the early 1950s when he was being ejected from the US after 15 years there. Anna Grimshaw and I edited it for publication as American Civilization in 1993. We thought it bore comparison with Tocqueville whom James draws on fully, as well as Melville and Whitman, but mainly US popular arts in the mid-20th century. It has been allowed to go out of print, but you can still pick up a copy on Amazon or ABE for about $15. I learned more from James than anyone else, both from his many books and from the years we spent together (with Anna) before he died in 1989, between Tiananmen Square and the Berlin Wall. I will never forget watching the first with him on TV as a young man tried to obstruct the tanks. The occasion of the student protest was a meeting attended by Gorbachev. James held that were only two world revolutions left -- the second Russian revolution and the second American revolution. He once wrote a wonderful article comparing the American civil rights movement in 1956 with Nkrumah's Ghana revolution and the Hungarian revolution at the same time. He exaggerated the significance of Poland's Soldariity, but he was right about Africa and no-one, Europeans and Africans alike, believed in such a possibility when he wrote on the eve of WW2. Anyway, we were watching TV in May 1989 along with half the world; and CLR said to me "The Chinese communists will put down the students down easily, but the Russians won't hold onto Eastern Europe after this. He died two weeks later at the age of 88, so he didn't see the Berlin Wall come down six months later. Sorry for the digression, but the current topic is capitalism, racism and revolution in the US and the world. Back to Goodbye to Columbine. I almost wept when I saw that cartoon blaming US violence on racism. The root cause of our ills is private property, its indifference or hostility to the public interest. Nowhere has this been more developed than the US and never so far (perhaps) as in the Gilded Age and now in the neoliberal era that is collapsing around our ears. Americans have much less social protection (aka welfare state) than Canada or W. Europe, even though for some decades now their governments have rushed to follow them. The BRICS governments (China, India, Brazil, Russia and South Africa), all in their own distinctive way and mainly just for the sake of their own survival, have been trying to expand social protection for the millions recently brought into city markets without it. This echoes the era of development states, les trente glorieuses after 1945 in the industrial West, the post-colonial states and the Soviet bloc. The world had the biggest economic boom in world history then. It is because most American families have had so little to save them from the ravages of capital and markets based on private property that they turned to violence (domestic and public), religion and racism on a scale for which there ie no parallel elsewhere, except maybe in South Africa. The last three decades or more have made this much worse in the Anglophone countries, led by the US. In 2011, with the Arab Spring and Occupy, I thought that the world was on the move in a good direction. Remember the demonstrations in so many cities around the world when Occupy first happened? Many reacted with enthusiasm to the notion that the status quo was being challenged in its heartland, the centre of global empire. We have since learned, as after WW1 and WW2, that the race is on to determine what kind of states will come to rule the world, both in response to the ruin (actual and prospective) of societies and the world economy and to repair the damage brought about by reckless and lawless globalization. The contenders were before welfare state democracy, fascism and communism.They are still contenders, but the world has now been brought closer together by neoliberal markets, telecommunications and cheap mobility. Closer, but more divided and unequal at the same time -- an explosive recipe. Federalism and the nation-state are still the main options as they were 200 yers ago. Most of the big countries have federal origins, but have become more like nation-states since WW2. This is especially true of the US and may become more so under Trump. The EU, which I once saw as a beacon for the federal option, has become an undemocratic bullies club. I would not put it past the Europeans to launch WW3, as they did the previous two. What was new about neoliberalism, after all? Politicians have always needed money and moneymen political cover. Their alliance is at least 300 or 400 years old and is probably universal. But they usually kept it under wraps, if they could. The Bank of England, Banque de France and Federal reserve are all based on private capital, but present themselves as an agency made by and serving the public interest. The difference is that neoliberals make a public virtue of this situation. God knows what variant Trump will come up with. In the meantime, we worry about what Trump is going to do -- and we have every reason to. But protesting in the streets won't do, at least by themselves. We need ways of imagining a better future, based on historical perspective and contemporary realism -- Hegel's (and Rousseau's) movement from the actual to the possible.The actual has deep roots in th epast as well as being global and not just local or national. My Facebook page if framed by a shot by a shot of Tahrir Square at night -- all that stirring agitation and animation, with cell-phone cameras flashing all around. It looks like something by Delacroix or Gericault. We all know what happened next in Egypt and its region. James would say the most people just want to keep what they have got most of the time -- and that is a good thing, he said, society would be impossible if it was run by a few professional agitators like him who spend all their time plotting to tu,rn everything upside down. But as Marx said, the revolution (and total war) comes like a thief in the night when no-one is expecting it. People now discover that they have lost most of what they had or are about to unless they do something about it and many of them join in with gusto. He would make up an illustrative example (he was also a novelist): you see this gut at th ebustop every day, buttoned up, never speaks to anyone. When the revolution comes, he could be organizing a street committee (soviet). In the revolution itself or war, the radical left may assume a position of leadership. since they have been dreaming about revolution all their adult lives. Or not, of course. It depends on who they are. Read Lenin's and Trosky's life history, for example. Keith On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift@gmail.com> wrote: On 11/11/2016 08:27 AM, Frederic Neyrat wrote: Here is my thought: as I don't think that racism is just a natural passion/affect/drive, I try to understand where it comes from. And, as I try to understand what happened in the USA, I thought that the neoliberal/capitalist/economic destruction of the economic, cultural, symbolic conditions of a certain number of white people, who however voted for Obama during the two last elections (at least some of them), fueled, generated or regenerated racism and a reactionary moment: to restore (or/and produce) a patriarchal/racist/misogynistic situation. <...>
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: