====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Vijay Prashad: Crisis, Chains, Change: The American Exception to Marxism http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/prashad240111.html Relevant for its discussion of Marxism & Poststructuralism (I can certainly relate to the sentiments here), the global ruling class and the Tea Party. >From the article: "The Tea <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/sd210410.html> Party<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/ds290410.html>is the political expression of the fears of the white working class and the managerial sector. Most of its supporters are older, white, and male. Many also happen to be Christian fundamentalists." ... "The Tea Party movement seeks a restoration of an early bargain, one that the white working class has lost as a result of the social processes of globalization. For its support of U.S. imperial adventures, it is willing to put up with a livable wage even if the CEO class captures the bulk of the social wealth for itself. Such a dream is anachronistic. The Tea Party does not recognize that the "United States of America" no longer exists. Its elite class shares far more with the elites of the other G20 states, that it is committed to globalization as long as these Davos Men do well, and that it has no loyalty to its own population. The Tea Party represents the patriotism of fools, who believe that the problem is the gains made by people of color within the United States." "The Tea Party has no political economy. Nor do its critics. The Tea Party will take refuge in the politics of toxicity. But one would imagine that their critics would not dismiss the social conditions that produce them, from where one can find ways to move their rage toward analysis, and create the long-term platform for unity against the real system that oppresses us all -- not the fake system that they believe has taken their jobs away. But the critics are also empty-handed. Liberal hero Jon Stewart holds a rally and finds his enemies in odd places: "Marxists actively subverting the Constitution, racists, and homophobes." Remarkable. And George Bush, for him, is not a "war criminal." We have work to do." ------------------------------------------------------ One thought. To what extent is the ruling class now 'global'? And what does this mean for how we think about imperialism and capitalism? Richard Seymour / Lenin's Tomb recently posted this piece: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/01/global-ruling-class.html Louis Proyect posted as comment the link to a recent New Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343 William Robinson's recent piece in Radical Philosophy ('The Global Capital Leviathan') might also be of interest: http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/default.asp?channel_id=2187&editorial_id=29356 There was some discussion of this a decade ago in the midst of the Global Justice Movement, in particular discussion was catalyzed by Hardt & Negri's 'Empire'. But 'Empire' was hopelessly utopian in outlook and then 9/11 happened and all the talk turned to 'The New Imperialism' and a US attempt to re-assert hegemony via neo-conservatism, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. One gets the feeling now that neo-conservatism was less a sea-change than a stage in the continuing evolution and deepening of a neo-liberal globalism, something that has been accelerated by this crisis. I noticed Louis attempted to have a discussion of imperialism some years ago which never really got past the 1970s. Where are we now? ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
