abduction of the left.
it seems to me the political left is primarily defined by two central elements:
1. it is anti-establishment. (one might oppose: what about the soviet union and other communist states? but do these really have that much in common with the left we currently see in the western world?)
2. it is in solidarity with the proletariat. (the main goal of the left is to improve the conditions of the working class.)
as pasolini saw in '68, these two elements can contradict each other. when anti-establishment sympathies turn into a blind hate for all institutions that represent the establishment, it can prevent the leftist "figli di papa" from seeing that the groups that function as a focal point for these sentiments represent not only the establishment, but also the proletariat.
following marx and hegel, the proletariat should not be defined in terms of working conditions or poverty, but in terms of a subjectivity deprived of symbolic / material substance. does this notion of the proletariat not coincide completely with the institution of the police - made up of individuals who fight for assigned causes they may not even understand? (pasolini's argument.) do the two elements of the left in this case fight each other?
i believe this is the blueprint of a mechanism that is nowadays emerging in many forms, that might go under the name of salon-sozialismus - a movement fighting for some leftist ideals, but thoroughly alienated from the harsh reality of the (international) proletariat. (the anti-establishment motive might in this case also emerge in the green agenda - for this too opposes itself to the dominant market incentives, and this agenda too neglects the financial strength of the proletariat.) it is internal contradictions like these that render much of the leftist battle ineffective - as was the case in the greek insurgency.
despite the righteous causes this branch of socialism fights for, it too lacks substance - and it is even less effective than the working class insurgency, for salon-sozialismus doesn't recognize this lack. in order for a new uprising to be effective, the left will desperately need the generative force of the proletariat, that realizes and combats its lack of substance, and knows what it is fighting for. in the current postmodern environment, in which power is unrecognizable and fluid, this may seem impossible - who is the proletariat in a world filled with intellectual labor, and who should it be fighting? nevertheless, one should recognize that the economic subaltern MUST speak for itself, and cannot be represented by those who have lost all sense of the real aims of the proletariat. if the proletariat has not only lost its material substance, but also the possibility to represent itself (because this position is taken by salon-socialists), its members will seek refuge in other political allignments (as is already happening), and the left will gradually lose touch with what was originally its primary objective: improving the conditions of the working class.
1. it is anti-establishment. (one might oppose: what about the soviet union and other communist states? but do these really have that much in common with the left we currently see in the western world?)
2. it is in solidarity with the proletariat. (the main goal of the left is to improve the conditions of the working class.)
as pasolini saw in '68, these two elements can contradict each other. when anti-establishment sympathies turn into a blind hate for all institutions that represent the establishment, it can prevent the leftist "figli di papa" from seeing that the groups that function as a focal point for these sentiments represent not only the establishment, but also the proletariat.
following marx and hegel, the proletariat should not be defined in terms of working conditions or poverty, but in terms of a subjectivity deprived of symbolic / material substance. does this notion of the proletariat not coincide completely with the institution of the police - made up of individuals who fight for assigned causes they may not even understand? (pasolini's argument.) do the two elements of the left in this case fight each other?
i believe this is the blueprint of a mechanism that is nowadays emerging in many forms, that might go under the name of salon-sozialismus - a movement fighting for some leftist ideals, but thoroughly alienated from the harsh reality of the (international) proletariat. (the anti-establishment motive might in this case also emerge in the green agenda - for this too opposes itself to the dominant market incentives, and this agenda too neglects the financial strength of the proletariat.) it is internal contradictions like these that render much of the leftist battle ineffective - as was the case in the greek insurgency.
despite the righteous causes this branch of socialism fights for, it too lacks substance - and it is even less effective than the working class insurgency, for salon-sozialismus doesn't recognize this lack. in order for a new uprising to be effective, the left will desperately need the generative force of the proletariat, that realizes and combats its lack of substance, and knows what it is fighting for. in the current postmodern environment, in which power is unrecognizable and fluid, this may seem impossible - who is the proletariat in a world filled with intellectual labor, and who should it be fighting? nevertheless, one should recognize that the economic subaltern MUST speak for itself, and cannot be represented by those who have lost all sense of the real aims of the proletariat. if the proletariat has not only lost its material substance, but also the possibility to represent itself (because this position is taken by salon-socialists), its members will seek refuge in other political allignments (as is already happening), and the left will gradually lose touch with what was originally its primary objective: improving the conditions of the working class.
posted by dennis at
10:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home