Diversity of tactics: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, December 2022

It was November 8, 1960.

My parents and their friends were arrayed around our black-and-white RCA Victor TV in our tiny San Bernardino living room. It was election evening, with John F. Kennedy duking it out against Richard Nixon. My parents were lifelong Democrats but some of the friends present had voted Republican. In a testament to the times, everybody was drinking, smoking, eating European deli foods, joking, laughing, and playfully arguing. It was quite congenial, with no mention of a “second civil war.”

My parents allowed me to stay up way past my bedtime so I wandered around in the background. I carried a glass jar filled with dry soup beans and every time Walter Cronkite announced a victory for Kennedy I shook the jar and said: “Kennedy wins!”

That was my first memory of an American election. I would become a “don’t vote, it only encourages them” anarchist in 1968 and burned my draft card in 1970. When the voting age was lowered to 18 in March of 1971, I ran with a group of New American Movement-inspired youngsters for city council and school board in Ventura, California. That same year I registered with the Peace and Freedom Party. I’ve had a complicated, some might say contradictory relationship with American politics ever since.

I’ve been a registered Democrat, a member of various electoral third parties, a defender of democratic unionism and political reformism, a promoter of the primacy of local politics, and a champion of initiative, recall and referendum processes. I’ve also actively participated in civic resistance, civil disobedience, direct action, extra-parliamentary opposition, autonomist workerism, and revolutionist street politics. As I’ve often quipped, I vote and I riot. My seemingly contradictory politics have been serial, sequential, parallel or simultaneous. I took my cue early on from Roel van Duijn, cofounder of the Dutch Provos and Kabouters, who came “up with a theory […]: the two-hand doctrine. That meant working in the system with one hand and stirring up trouble via extra-parliamentary movements with the other.”

This embrace of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary tactics parallels Malcolm X’s inclusion of nonviolence and armed self-defense in a common Black revolutionary strategy when he said: “Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods or tactics or strategy to reach a common goal. […] We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society.” A “diversity of tactics” is the basis for much social change. Indeed, the Long 1960s were an affirmation of a “diversity of tactics”—riots, strikes, popular uprisings, insurrectionary movements, social revolutions—well before the term was coined defensively and negatively in the lead-up to the Seattle 1999 WTO shutdown. The broad protest coalition responsible for the N30 “Battle for Seattle” failed to agree upon strict nonviolence and thus could not arrive on a unified, targeted political strategy. So this was a “diversity of tactics” by inaction, by a failure to act.

Despite this default “diversity of tactics,” the WTO shutdown has become one of the defining triumphs of the twenty-first century Left. Alexander Cockburn wrote that “you can take the state by surprise only once or twice in a generation” and likened the Battle for Seattle to May/June 1968 in Paris. Now consider the “once or twice in a century” surprise of the February 1917 Russian Revolution and the protean tactics of Lenin in building his vanguard party and the Bolshevik seizure of state power in terms of this discussion of “diversity of tactics.”

The February Revolution that overthrew the Tsarist regime was truly a broad, popular, chaotic uprising of mass strikes, bread riots, armed mutinies, and soviet takeovers that embodied Lenin’s sentiment that: “[t]here are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” It was a period that epitomized a “diversity of tactics.” Lenin would critique both the timid parliamentarianism of social democrats like the Mensheviks and the uncompromising abstentionist revolutionism of “infantile” left communists, preferring a tactical flexibility suited to time, place and social conditions. His arsenal of tactics and strategies (industrial working class organizing, agitation and action; popular protests and street fighting; armed insurrection; even bank expropriations) included participation in or boycotts of parliamentary elections depending on the situation. Lenin’s support for a Bolshevik boycott of the first Duma elections was reversed in subsequent Duma votes as a way to “count their forces” and strengthen their influence among workers. He contended that the 1917 workers soviets were the true Russian working class government, more democratic than the Duma, the Russian Provisional Government or any Western-style parliament. But Lenin went on to argue for a clear Bolshevik candidate list to be elected to win the 1917 Constituent Assembly instead of dismissing the Assembly as less democratic than the system of workers soviets, thereby sidestepping calls for a boycott. The Bolsheviks won only twenty-four percent of the overall vote in the Constituent Assembly, which was subsequently dissolved by the Bolshevik/left Social Revolutionary-led Soviet government.

All tactics, all strategies put forward by Lenin were in service of and intended to advance the Bolsheviks as a vanguard party ultimately through the October Revolution seizure of state power. This was not a “diversity of tactics” either spontaneous, conscious, or by default. Lenin’s vanguard party employed a variety of tactics, but in acting as a revolutionary vanguard it significantly narrowed the tactical field of the revolution. The Bolshevik fraction became the ruling Communist Party which governed the country through the workers soviets. The Party made decisions on state policy, with the soviets acting to implement public approval for the Party’s program. The Soviet constitution recognized the Party’s leading role in politics, completing the substitution of the vanguard party for the working class in power. It would take Stalin to further substitute the leader for the party and finish the consolidation of power into the hands of one individual in the name of socialism.

I have few quibbles with the plethora of tactics and broad strategies available to the Left, considering them versatile with regard to time, place and social conditions. Whether I act in terms of nonviolence or armed self-defense, labor organizing or street politics, electoral incrementalism or revolutionary socialism depends on circumstance. Instead I take issue with who rules—the class versus the party versus the leader.

I may not have the theoretical chops a la Lenin to determine which tactics and strategies work best to advance the Left in its quest for socialism even as I critique the Bolsheviks’ anti-democratic practices in pushing their form of socialism. But I have learned some lessons in my pursuit of politics. Politics work best when there is a level of congruence, when for instance people strive for a decentralized, anti-authoritarian, peaceful society through decentralized, anti-authoritarian, peaceful methods. But when faced by an enemy bent on my extermination, I won’t hesitate to declare the necessity to destroy what seeks to destroy me. I’m not a fan of conducting politics by catchphrase: “if voting worked, it would be illegal,” “whoever they vote for, we are ungovernable,” “voting is harm reduction,” etc. Rather, I’ve been a strong proponent of “by any means necessary,” of the Left doing whatever it takes to achieve socialism. Yet I know I’m not likely to ever live to see that socialism.

We’ve just come through the US election midterms as I write this, with its surprising lack of an elected representative bump in the US House and Senate for the Republicans thanks to the GOP’s problematic association with Trump and his toxic election denialism. I’m the first to argue that there’s barely a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats in American politics. However, there’s human misery associated with even the incremental nature of US electoral politics: the woman denied an abortion, the trans person refused their identity, the black man murdered by the police, etc. The Democrats rubbing the faces of the American electorate in the GOP’s fringe extremism proved a winning strategy, a way to use the right’s fascist ugliness against itself, a political judo if you would.

On a more personal note: I’ve been involved in electoral campaigns throughout my political life, from George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign to Bob Beyerle’s 1991 Chula Vista mayoral run. Virtually all of them proved unsuccessful, often disastrously so. The one I’m least proud of was phone banking for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential run. The personal lesson I’ve learned from them is the need to back off. I’ve become so involved with these past electoral campaigns that I developed unhealthy levels of anxiety and sleeplessness as a consequence. In 2020 and 2022 I turned down the news from major media and the internet. Not only did I sleep better and my anxiety levels go down, the objective political consequences were marginally better. Biden won in 2020 and the Republican “red wave” failed to materialize in 2022. I’m such a political animal that these were positive if piecemeal experiences.

SOURCES:
Personal recollections
Ten Days That Shook the World by John Reed
Netherlands: The Second Liberation by Roel van Duijn
“The Black Revolution,” Malcolm X Speaks by Malcolm X, George Breitman
Five Days That Shook the World: Seattle and Beyond by Alexander Cockburn

Buy my books here.

 

Campism: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, November 2022

“This is utter nonsense.”

The gray-haired bespectacled man gestured angrily. It was July 21, 1989 and I was standing behind the Neither East Nor West literature table at the “Without Borders” anarchist conference/festival in San Francisco’s Mission High School. I was hanging out with the THRUSH girls and Bob McGlynn as the pissed-off individual continued to point at our table’s banner.

“Neither East Nor West, huh? That sounds an awful lot like the slogan of the Italian Fascist MSI. Neither Left nor Right.”

“We’re anarchists, not fascists,” Bob said.

“Anarchists, fascists, it’s all the same.” The man delivered his verbal coup. “If you’re not for the international socialist revolution you’re for reactionary capitalist imperialism.”

I’ve recently written a couple of columns exposing the idiocy that is Fascist Third Positionism.[1] Let’s now talk about campism and legitimate efforts to transcend it. In order to discuss international politics, let’s start with an analogy.

The problem of predicting the individual motions of celestial objects in classical mechanics and physics depends on the number of objects in question. Called the n-body problem, a single body like a lone star or a rogue planet is the simplest to calculate because it’s the most stable. Two objects orbiting around a common center of gravity—a binary star system, a star and its planet, or a planet and its moon—is slightly more complex but ultimately solvable mathematically, again because of its relative stability. Add a third or more bodies and it’s impossible to predict the motions of three-plus bodies mutually bound by gravity given their initial positions and velocities. The dynamics of any such three-plus-body system is inherently chaotic and unstable. The sun-earth-moon system constitutes the archetypal example of the three-plus-body problem. “The Three-Body Problem” is also the title of a recent science fiction novel by Chinese writer Liu Cixin.

Consider first the idea of a unipolar world being analogous to a “one-body” dynamic. The period between 1815 and 1914 has been called the British Imperial Century—Pax Britannica—when Great Britain reached the height of its global empire and ruled the world by controlling the high seas and the international commerce on them. The British Empire was hegemonic and its currency dominant, serving as the global cop that insured relative peace between the Great Powers of the day. Yet unipolarity is not dependent on such factors. China during the Ming and Qing dynasties dominated all of East Asia, but pursued a more limited territorial expansion that didn’t provoke rival powers into challenging China’s power militarily. The United States took over Britain’s imperial role, but when it achieved true unipolarity after the collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1991 its Pax Americana was anything but peaceful or stable. The United States has been at war for twenty-two of the thirty-two years since the Cold War ended and the world became unipolar. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and confrontation with the US and NATO has reinstigated the dangerous uncertainties of a new Cold War. A Cold War 2.0.

I’m a child of the West with the bipolar worldview set in motion by Aristotelian non-contradiction logic, fortified by Christian good-vs-evil crypto-Manichaeism, and tweaked by Hegelian Two-Camps Zhdanovian Doctrine.[2] I grew up during the Cold War (1945-1991) that posited a bipolar world of two contending power centers—a “Free World” that wasn’t free and a “Communist bloc” that wasn’t communist. Capitalist nations were expected to side with the US while socialist nations were expected to ally with the old USSR. The deadly “dance” between these two world powers was marked by quick mutual readjustments which prevented any uncontrolled escalation of hostilities or the possibility of power imbalances developing, so much so that the lack of a major war during the Cold War period has been called the “long peace.” But just because a major war didn’t occur doesn’t mean the Cold War was an era of international peace and stability. Numerous bloody “brush” wars and proxy guerrilla/counterinsurgency conflicts were fought around the globe, most notably in Vietnam and Korea. And the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction nearly devolved into nuclear annihilation during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus the relative stability of “two-body” dynamics in physics is not analogous to campism, past or present.

According to Jason Schulman and Dan La Botz, present-day campism “approaches world politics from the standpoint that the main axis of conflict is between two hostile geopolitical camps: the ‘imperialist camp,’ today made up of the United States, Western Europe, Saudi Arabia, and Israel (or some such combination) on one hand and the ‘anti-imperialist camp’ of Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other less-industrialized nations on the other. The anti-imperialist camp is generally defined as all formerly colonized nations and especially all avowedly anti-imperialist governments in the Global South.” This is also Cold War 2.0 politics. Campism arose from the Russian Revolution, the isolation of international Communism by world capitalism, the response of the Third International (ComIntern) to that isolation, and their usurpation by Stalin and Stalinism. The USSR attempted to reinforce the Soviet pole of campism by molding the Warsaw Pact nations in the image of Russian Communism while Mao’s split from the Soviet Union attempted to redefine campism with a Chinese-Third Worldist pole. China became the leader of the socialist camp, all Third World anti-US struggles were automatically deemed progressive, and the Soviet Union was denounced as “social imperialist.” Campism persisted despite the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Russia’s authoritarian embrace of oligarchic capitalism and irredentist imperialism, and China’s totalitarian turn to state capitalism and global economic empire. Thanks to the degeneration of the 60s New Left, the binary logic of campism is now entrenched in much of the Left. It is truly the anti-imperialism of fools; usually of Stalinist, Maoist, Marcyist, or Third Worldist ML hardliners, apologists, fellow travelers, or sympathizers, but more and more of social democrats, democratic socialists, and Code Pink liberals.[3]

I’ve been trying to define an anti-campist “three-plus-body” multipolar politics since 1968. My development from left anarchism through left communism to my current eclectic libertarian socialism was my attempt to sidestep the restraints of campist bipolarity. Libertarian socialism in all its diversity has remained a viable third stance between orthodox Social Democracy and Marxism-Leninism historically within the Left, as well as a contemporary alternative to campist imperialism/anti-imperialism. My support for international alliances like the Non-Aligned Movement of nations as well as grassroots organizations like Neither East Nor West (NENW) also reflected a similar multipolarity. I’ve always subscribed to the Yiddish aphorism that, whenever confronted with two equally bad choices, always choose the third.

The Cold War 2.0 logic that the planet is divided between two antagonistic power blocs—an “anti-imperialist socialist camp” and an “imperialist capitalist camp”—is now gospel on the Left. Marginalized “independent revolutionary socialist organizations opposed to both the ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ social systems” invoke the threadbare cliché of “international working class solidarity” to counter it. I recommend we bring back the left-libertarian politics of NENW as a direct response to campism instead. NENW grew out of anti-war and anti-nuclear movements, specifically the Trust Groups on both sides of the “Iron Curtain,” as well as support for the 1980 Polish Solidarity labor union. Started in the fall of 1986 in New York by anarchists, anti-authoritarians and libertarian socialists, NENW-NYC put out the newspaper On Gogol Boulevard in 1987. NENW groups sprang up across North America, prominent  among them Chicago NENW, Bay Area NENW, Toronto NENW, Lawrence KS NENW, Albany NY NENW, Miami NENW, and Mexico City NENW. Almost 40 groups eventually coalesced into the North American East/West Network. NENW initiated international campaigns against repression and for political prisoners, solidarity with dissent and popular uprisings, and support for workers, dissidents, activists, and counterculturalists in both the capitalist and socialist camps—an effective multivalent strategy. The NENW network and On Gogol Boulevard gradually faded after 1994 with the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, even though Bob McGlynn optimistically wrote in 2014:
The Neither East Nor West network remains alive, despite the demise of the East Bloc. Our focus on the East, or former “Second [socialist] World,” also served as a doorway to incorporating—in multiple and concrete ways—the concerns of the “Third [underdeveloped] World” and “Fourth World” (land-based indigenous peoples), with a particular focus on supporting activists and movements with anti-authoritarian and anti-Stalinist perspectives.
Bob died on August 23, 2016. An updated version of those neither-nor politics deserves to be revived to counter the stupidity of campism.

“Three-plus-body” dynamics in physics are inherently unstable whereas academics disagree on whether global multipolarity can ever be peaceful and stable, with classical realists squaring off against neo-realists. I consider unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity unstable and conflict-ridden to one degree or another. Perhaps peace and stability shouldn’t be the goal, but rather the aim should be the liberation and socialism that makes peace and stability possible.

 

SOURCES:
Personal recollections
Imperialism: A Study by John A. Hobson (1902)
Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1916 & 1917)
“The Anti-Imperialism of Fools” by Paul Berman, Dissent Magazine (1987)
Reply to Aufheben #1 by Gilles Dauvé (1997)
“The poverty of ‘anti-imperialism’ and today’s Left” by Workers’ Liberty (2010)
The Modern World-System, v. I-IV by Immanuel Wallerstein (1974-2011)
“Anarchy in Trieste: Anarchists from East & West meet in Italy” (Fifth Estate #334, Summer 1990); “Whoopie! East Bloc Explodes” (Love and Rage, April 1990); “Partial Victory for Nigerian Anarchists” (Love and Rage April/May 1993);“The Group ‘Neither East Nor West-NYC’: A De Facto Anarchist Black Cross History: The years 1980 to Spring 1994” (2013); “Neither East Nor West: How a small group of anarchists took on the Soviet Union and won!” (Fifth Estate # 391, Spring/Summer 2014) all by Bob McGlynn
“The ‘Anti-Imperialism’ Of Idiots” by Leila Shami, Leila’s blog (2018)
“Against Campism, for International Working-Class Solidarity” by Jason Schulman and Dan La Botz, (Socialist Forum, Democratic Socialists of America, Winter 2020)
“Is the enemy of my enemy my friend?: Barnaby Raine on the resurgence of ’tankie’ and ‘campist’ politics” by The Breach (October 22, 2021)
“A Letter to the Western Left from Kyiv” by Taras Bilous (Dissent, February 22, 2022)
“Time to decamp from cold-war ideas” by Sheri Berman (Social Europe, March 28, 2022)
“Internationalism, Anti-Imperialism, And the Origins of Campism” by Dan La Botz (NewPolitics vol. XVIII no. 4, #72, Winter 2022)
“When My Enemy’s Enemy Is Not My Friend: Campism in Dangerous Times” by John Clarke (Spectre Journal, June 1, 2022)

FOOTNOTES
[1] Lenin formulated his theory of imperialism in 1916 which differentiates the world capitalist economy into the capitalist national centers of European empire and their exploited colonial periphery. In a Marxist anti-imperialist context, French social scientist Alfred Sauvy coined the term Third World in 1952 as an analog to the Third Estate of the French Revolution. Also jumping off from Leninist anti-imperialism, Mao propounded his Three Worlds Theory by 1974 in which the First World is the developed capitalist nations, the Second World is the socialist nations posing as an international alternative, and the Third World is the orthodox category of undeveloped, underdeveloped and developing  nations. Starting in 1974, Immanuel Wallerstein charted the differentiation of the present world capitalist economy via the consolidation of nation-states and national economies into the fully developed core region, an undeveloped, underdeveloped and developing exploited periphery, and a semi-peripheral region in between. These tripartite schemas imply a fourth geographic tier, a Fourth World in Maoism and an outer periphery in the case of Wallerstein encompassing the marginal territories and peoples incapable of consolidating viable nation-states and national economies. Fourth World in the First-Second-Third World schema refers to land-based indigenous peoples. I am old and set in my ways so I prefer the term Third World to Global South. Global South and Global North go beyond mere geography to include factors of development, power and wealth. Global South in particular is considered  a more open and value-free alternative to Third World, but it’s also less nuanced and frankly vague.

[2] Plato first used the term tertium quid (triton ti) around 360 bce. In ancient Greek philosophy, it meant something that escapes classification in either of two mutually or more exclusive and theoretically exhaustive categories. What’s left after such a supposedly rigorous, exhaustive division is tertium quid. The third what. The third something. Tertium quid might be residue, sui generis, ambiguous, composite or transcendent depending on one’s philosophical inclinations.

[3] There are a few political movements that focus on “third” as meaning an alternative to two conventional positions. Third Position refers to a number of fascist and neo-fascist political ideologies that claim to “go beyond Left and Right” or “beyond capitalism and communism.” (See White Aryan Resistance and American Front in the US.) Trotskyism long defended the Russian Revolution and the USSR from imperialist aggression while calling it a “degenerated workers’ state” in need of an anti-bureaucratic, anti-Stalinist working-class revolution. This opposition to both capitalism and Stalinism was called third campism or third camp socialism. (See Shachtmanism.) Third Way centrist political promoters in liberal Western nations seek to reconcile left-wing and right-wing policies by advocating various kinds of centrist political syntheses. (Bill Clinton’s presidency was implicitly Third Way.)

The Third Wave was a social experiment by Cubberley High School history teacher Ron Jones who hoped to create an ersatz social movement and demonstrate how Germans could have accepted the actions of Hitler and the Nazi regime during the rise of the Third Reich through the Second World War. The experiment was wildly successful, quickly spiraled out of control, and was subsequently documented or fictionalized in numerous films, TV shows, and books. “Third wave” has been used in a quasi-generational sense in political contexts as in “third-wave feminism.” And “third wave democracy” has been used to describe an international third democratic surge starting with the 1974 Portuguese Carnation Revolution and spreading to Latin America (1980s), Asian Pacific nations (1986-88), Eastern Europe (after 1989), and sub-Saharan Africa (also after 1989). The Arab Spring and various “color revolutions” are considered part of this third wave democracy.

Buy my books here.

 

Left of the Left: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, July 2022

I sometimes view humanity’s sordid past as one long, interminable tale chronicling organized bands of murderous thugs trying to exterminate each other. Much as I admire the sentiment of pacifism and humanism, I’m neither a pacifist nor a humanist. Homicide seems to be part of our species, with genocide often its inevitable conclusion.

I’ve been on the left of the Left for most of my life; from being a left anarchist in my youth to a half-assed libertarian Marxist today. That means embracing a vision of stateless, classless global communism even as I abhor the terrors perpetrated by Leninist movements and regimes. I consider all forms of Fascism an abomination, and I dismiss the red-brown sophistry of Third Positionism as fascist sleight-of-hand. In the wake of the precipitous 1989-91 collapse of the Communist bloc, there’s been an upsurge of tankyism/campism on the Left that sees world conflict in terms of US-led imperialism versus any and all opposition to imperialism. That anti-imperialist “camp” is considered socialist by default, even when it’s in defense of patently capitalist, authoritarian, totalitarian, even outright fascist regimes. Then there’s the steady rehabilitation of overtly Fascist/Nazi politics. Last column I commented that, when I was growing up I only saw Nazis as fictional TV characters. Now I see them unashamedly flaunting their fascism in the Republican Party and in demonstrations I’ve recently organized against.

So why do I identify with the Left, despise the Right, and consistently choose socialism over barbarism every time? Continue reading

Antiwar: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, May 2022

“Peace is not simply the absence of violence or war”—a truism I grew up with in the 1960s. When I first got politics in 1968 I called myself an anarchist-pacifist and affiliated with the American Friends Service Committee, War Resisters League, and similar organizations which promoted the concept that in order to achieve a social order based on peace, one had to use nonviolent methods. I flirted with the eastern religious concept of ahimsa and the western religious notion of turning the other cheek, as well as more formalized nonviolent practices like Gandhi’s satyagraha.  But soon the contradictions of pacifism, specifically the argument that nonviolence doesn’t save lives or guarantee peace in the short or long run, dissuaded me from remaining a pacifist. Besides, I didn’t have the integrity or discipline to practice any form of nonviolence. And while I rejected the pacifist notion that nonviolent ends require nonviolent means, I incorporated the whole “means-and-ends” argument into my anti-authoritarian politics at the time.

So I opposed the Vietnam War, not so much out of principle but out of self interest. I was subject to the draft and I didn’t want to be conscripted and shipped off to die in a rice paddy in Southeast Asia. Thus I wasn’t part of the peace movement so much as I participated in the antiwar movement. I’ll briefly discuss one small aspect of the anti-Vietnam War movement’s wide and convoluted history—the attempt to build and sustain a single, overarching antiwar organization in the US. The broadest umbrella coalition of people, organizations and issues seeking to end America’s intervention in Southeast Asia was the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (the Mobe). Continue reading

American socialism revisited: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, October 2021

Socialism for the rich; capitalism for the poor.

It’s an oft-repeated Leftist cliché that encapsulates an entire socio-political-economic analysis in a single sentence. It was first promulgated by Michael Harrington and frequently repeated by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, and Robert Reich. The gist of this argument is that capitalist corporations receive government largess in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable legislation while the general population is left to fend for itself. Big business regularly receives favorable treatment and corporate welfare from the government which allows corporations to “privatize profits and socialize losses.” The rest of us are shit-out-of-luck.(1) Continue reading

Anti-imperialism: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, September 2021

I am against imperialism, be it French, British, US or Chinese. I am not an “anti-imperialist,” since that is a political position supporting national liberation movements opposed to imperialist powers.
—Gilles Dauvé

Mark Twain was an anti-imperialist, a member of the American Anti-Imperialist League (1898-1920) which opposed US annexation of the Philippines. For the League, just republican government was based on the principle of the “consent of the governed” as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, and Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The imperialism of US territorial expansion thus violated the classical liberal precepts of self-government and non-intervention as put forward by British writers like John A. Hobson. Twain’s dark sarcasm and claims of America’s liberatory intent notwithstanding, he was neither so generous nor as damning regarding the US continental expansion of Manifest Destiny that expropriated the native peoples. The raison d’être of this type of anti-imperialism was simple; empire was bad and needed to be morally opposed.

Continue reading

Alternate socialism: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?”, July 2021

I received a letter yesterday from my leftist penpal via the Multiverse Postal Service. We’ve been discussing the origins of the Cold War in our respective parallel universes. I quote from his lengthy missive below:

We both agree that the similar contours of our side-by-side worlds were consolidated after the disastrous Afghan war. But we each have differing timelines for the historical sequence of events starting from the February 1917 Russian Revolution that produced our present realities in our alternate universes.

Continue reading

Of Trotskyists & stockbrokers: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?” May 2021

Is this just ultra-revolutionary high-voltage subjectivism of a petty-bourgeois gone wild—or what?
—Otto Wille Kuusinen, on Trotsky at Comintern’s Sixth Congress

Anyone who has been through the Trotskyist movement, for example, as I have, knows that in respect to decent personal behavior, truthfulness, and respect for dissident opinion, the ‘comrades’ are generally much inferior to the average stockbroker.
—Dwight MacDonald, The Root is Man

“Lenin and Trotsky were sympathetic to the Bolshevik left before 1921,” the man insisted. “Really they were.” Continue reading

New Socialist Movement: “Lefty” Hooligan, “What’s Left?” April 2021

 

Nie mój cyrk, nie moje małpy
—Polish proverb

It wasn’t my scene.

I attended Stuart Shuffman’s book release party for Broke-Ass Stuart’s Guide to Living Cheaply in San Francisco sometime in November, 2007. Stuart initially xeroxed his zine at Kinko’s and personally distributed it to stores and shops around the city. His handmade publication was about to become a conventional paperback travel guide produced by a now-defunct independent publishing company that would offer a New York City edition the next year. His Guide to Living Cheaply combined two of my favorite things—zines and cheap eats—under the imprimatur “you are young, broke and beautiful” but the raucous release event wasn’t for me. Continue reading