Politics of the Contemporary Student Left

[which doctor]

The following is from a panel discussion about the state of the contemporary student left by members of such groups as United Students Against Sweatshops, SDS, and Platypus. It also appeared in the latest issue of the Platypus Review, which, in my opinion, is the only US publication that actually offers constructive critiques of the leftist movement, which they openly admit is in crisis.

It's a long read, but worth it.

http://platypus1917.org/2009/09/30/politics-of-the-contemporary-student-left/
(http://platypus1917.org/2009/09/30/politics-of-the-contemporary-student-left/)
I think there most important point is that we need to get beyond ourselves and the only way to do this is to look critically at ourselves and our history. Creating a new project for an emancipitory politics is no easy task, but it's necessary to redefine ourselves, both ideologically and practically, if we wish to get beyond our current state.

[The Idler]

What is Platypus1917 I've never heard of it before? It also links to Hobgoblin, what is that?

[which doctor]

I'm not sure what Hobgoblin is, but I do have some familiarity with Platypus.

http://platypus1917.org/

The Platypus Society is difficult to define, but to put it simply (if perhaps mildly misleading), they are an academic Marxist discussion forum. It's a network of a few student groups around the US. Take a look at what universities they're at (University of Chicago, SAIC, MIT, NYU), and you get the idea of what kind of people they are. They don't do any explicit organizing and don't participate in protest/activist politics so much, but they do fulfill another, perhaps more important role at this point in time. They host reading groups, open forums, panel discussions, workshops, film screenings, and publish a somewhat montly periodical, the Platypus Review.

They're primary focus at the moment is opening up dialogue and reflection on the current state of the left and how best to proceed from here. They also oppose the prevailing anti-intellectual trend present within much of the radical left. Readers might find them overly cynical, but it's hard not to be at this point in history.

They admit they're esoteric and far too academic at times, but they still provide a lot of constructive criticism to the left, especially in their Platypus Review.

While Platypus has no definite ideology or party line, a Platypus tendency becomes clear if you read their work. They're influenced by Marx and Critical Theory/the Frankfurt School (an underappreciated source in the Anglo world), and many of their members politically came of age during the post-9/11, anti-war movement in the US in the early 2000's. In the wake of their disillusionment of the protest politics culture and the waning relevancy of the anti-war movement, they seek to redefine what the left is all about and how best to proceed from here to an emancipitory politics.

[The Idler]

Should I add them to my list of parties?

[which doctor]

Well they're not a political party nor do they claim to be one, so I'd say no.

[KurtFF8]

I've read the two pieces on USAS and SDS and their criticism of these organizations seems to be pretty dead on and valuable.

I think that both organizations need to read this article and deal with it, it would help them quite a bit.

I'll read the rest later.

[Barry Lyndon]

I was in Platypus review, and they bullied me because I was too supportive of the Palestinian cause. They have an ardent Zionist on their staff.
Underneath the Marxist veneer, they are staunch supporters of American imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, their major beef with the rest of the left is that it is too 'anti-imperialist'. I say stay away from them.

[Raúl Duke]

Take a look at what universities they're at (University of Chicago, SAIC, MIT, NYU), and you get the idea of what kind of people they are.

Those are mostly private universities...

[Astinilats]

Platypus is a worthless group of anti-communist pieces of shit that don't do anything. Fuck them.

[Astinilats]

Among my friends, colleagues, and comrades who attend as many of these events as possible, there is a widespread and deeply rooted anti-intellectualism. It seems that the more protests each attends the more prone he or she is to tell me that Platypus does not do anything, to which I reply, “Since when did thinking become understood as inaction?” My experiences in SDS convinced me that this form of anti-intellectualism, which we have inherited from the past, has led to our generation’s depoliticization, whether in the form of activism or passivity.

This is a polite way for people to tell you they don't give a shit about your ridiculous anti-communist 'theorizing' and they want you to do something useful.

[which doctor]

Underneath the Marxist veneer, they are staunch supporters of American imperialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, their major beef with the rest of the left is that it is too 'anti-imperialist'. I say stay away from them.


Platypus is a worthless group of anti-communist pieces of shit that don't do anything. Fuck them.
You two read the Worker's Vanguard much? :lol:

[Barry Lyndon]

You two read the Worker's Vanguard much?

You know, it is possible to despise Platypus and not belong to the Spartacist League. Strange but true!

"In the here-and-now, it is clear that the political struggle against Islamism in South Asia, as elsewhere, has a military aspect and that any marginally desirable political outcome will have been brought about at least in part by means of the violence of state action. Moreover, as most Leftists would doubtless be loathe to admit, the very prospect of reconstituting Leftist politics in South Asia rides to no small extent on the ability of the U.S. and NATO to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan."-
'Nothing Left to Say" by Spencer Leonard, Platypus Review, Feb. 2009.

Translation: the NATO occupation of Afghanistan is progressive.
The same author has denied, on tape, that their was any hunger in Gaza and that the living conditions in Cairo's slums were much worse. I have been to Cairo's slums, and that is false. He is a liar and is whitewashing the Israeli blockade.

I have seen a member of the Platypus staff at a meeting at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, who shall remain nameless, openly justifying Israel's massacre in Gaza and everyone else snickering and smiling, not contradicting him at all, with Chris Cutrone adding that there can be no Left in the region until Israel crushes Hamas.

[black magick hustla]

I think deep anti-intellectualism is a silly and prevalent trend. for example, i was once discussing with an anarchist, and some students tried to form an "anarchist theory group" and she says she wants to read but she is too busy "organizing". i told her reading theory is important. then she asked about my politics and she said the difference between communists and anarchists are that anarchists are more cultural. lol. i told her this is not true and that ive known some anarchists who dont engage in that shit.

[KurtFF8]

Despite these interesting criticisms of Platypus, the OP article is still a pretty good one and I haven't seen any counter-arguments to that so far in this thread (if that's even what the critics of Platypus are getting at here)

[Barry Lyndon]

The issue with the article in the OP is that Platypus doesn't "think". It's purely reactive, not pro-active. All these people do is sit around and snicker and sneer at direct action protesters without positing any actual alternatives, therby contributing to inaction and lethargy. They run through long histories as to why everyone else in the left is wrong except them, while doing this with 20/20 hindsight and not saying what they would do under the same circumstances. Well encrusted inside bourgeois academic institutions, they also seem to accept an astonishing amount of ruling class propaganda about Venezuela, Cuba, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and past revolutions in China and Vietnam.
I'm not saying that criticism of the ideology and tactics of student radicals is not valid, I'm just saying that Platypus poses not alternative and instead is this self-congratulatory elitist club.

[CartCollector]

The article is from Platypus, and it complains about USAS, but the thing is, they're both weak. They have to be. The proletariat creates wealth and the bourgeoisie takes it and controls it. If the proletariat takes back its own wealth and ignores the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie has no leg to stand on, since they have nothing left to command. Now tell me, how do a bunch of college students create wealth for the bourgeoisie? That's right, they don't. They have no leverage to use against the bourgeois order like the proletariat does. In the end, all of the college students' squabbling and protesting and theorizing and whining have no effect. Capitalists got to compete, workers got to get paid, and all the campus demonstrations in the world can't do anything to change that.

[KurtFF8]

I think you're assessment that "how are a bunch of college kids related to the working class movement" is not just using an over simplistic analysis but ignores the countless times where workers and students have been united in class struggle.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

The article is from Platypus, and it complains about USAS, but the thing is, they're both weak. They have to be. The proletariat creates wealth and the bourgeoisie takes it and controls it. If the proletariat takes back its own wealth and ignores the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie has no leg to stand on, since they have nothing left to command. Now tell me, how do a bunch of college students create wealth for the bourgeoisie? That's right, they don't. They have no leverage to use against the bourgeois order like the proletariat does. In the end, all of the college students' squabbling and protesting and theorizing and whining have no effect. Capitalists got to compete, workers got to get paid, and all the campus demonstrations in the world can't do anything to change that.

In my opinion I agree with Autonomist theory that students form part of the working class. To dismiss student movements and protests is really blind and demeaning. Historically student movements have seen students stand side by side with the proletariat and not against each other. Bologna 77 and Paris 68.

[Barry Lyndon]

ME: Laurie-

The fact that you consider a Zionist supporter of colonialism a legitimate point of view speaks volumes.

LAURIE:Sam, is that all you got?

I never said such a thing, not even close. Don't distort what I said.

I will not accept you "castigating" or "scolding" me for welcoming this person into the group and not changing his mind to what you think is an appropiate political position.

The person you speak about was my roomate and we've had extensive disagreements on this. Sometimes you dont reach an agreement, all that you can get is a clarification of the other's position, if one is willing to listen. I dont expunge nor exclude somebody from a political conversation when we disagree. I now know why he has the position he has, one which I disagree, meanwhile, I am still baffled by yours. I have had way more productive and transforming conversations with him than I ever imagine you willing to partake in; you have already assumed what my position is without even hearing it, and you will never move a single inch from the posiiton you currently have, likely out of pure stubborness, or even worse, self-righteousness.




Post #29

You wroteon November 3, 2009 at 8:38am
Laurie-

I never said anything about accepting different political positions, that is not what this is about.

This goes way beyond merely having a different point of view. This is an individual who supports a position which upholds the dispossession, mass murder and destruction of an entire group of people. That is not a legitimate political position, that is sheer racism and hatred. He doesn't belong in any sane political group. much less a supposedly left-wing group.
I'd like to see you try to 'reason' with a neo-Nazi, a Klansman, or an Islamic fundamentalist.
And the fact that he was your roomate is one of the weakest excuses Iv'e ever heard. Last year, I had a roomate who was a raving homophobe, who compared gays to people who engaged in beastiality. Guess what? I didn't talk to him for nearly the whole year!
You don't talk to, engage with, and reason with racists and bigots. Doing so only legitimizes them. Which is EXACTLY what you and Platypus does!
And yeah, I understand his "position". He's a German with a misplaced guilt complex who feels that because of the Holocaust, he is obligated to support incinerating Palestinian children with white posphorus.
When you accept a supporter of the Taliban into your group, I'll believe your claims. Until then, I'm convinced your a bunch of closet racists who aren't bothered at all by anti-Arab/anti-Muslim bigotry.
ME(LATER POST):
Well?

Petty-bourgeois 'leftists' like yourself are VERY understanding and coddling toward Zionists, while the moment someone gets too pro-Palestinian for your tastes you scream and call them an 'Islamist'. Iv'e seen this first hand, Laurie.

LAURIE:
To me, not platypus, you have chosen to support David over Goliath in a long series of ethnic cleansing battles. Anybody who has so dedicated attention to Israel-Palestine conflict, as yours, and continual puts an emphasis on Palestinians, talked about as a "whole group of people," to continual support against the zionists, is as racist as the Zionist. Both positions are racist. To say one is pro-Palestinian, by name, is a racist position in itself, I just don't see how you don't understand that.

The point that platypus has tried to make about that is we need to understand historically and politically, as a series of catastrophes that resulted from the defeats of the Left. The problem in the region is one relation the question of nationalism and internationalism, and furthermore, I would add a little utopian/distopian vision here, and is one that cannot be resolved progressively with a strong international Left, perhaps even without a revolution. And even that is obscure because you and me likely have very distinct ideas of what a revolution might look like in the 21st century, because after all I am just a petty-bourgeois leftist and you are content with being pro-Palestinian.

ME:
"About your first post in response to me. I can very easily say you are a guilt-ridden white American who is traumatized by US imperialism around the world, to explain your 'position.' "

That's right, psycho-analyze me! Do tell, do I support the victims of US imperialism employing colonization and ethnic cleansing against an innocent third party?

"To me, not platypus, you have chosen to support David over Goliath in a long series of ethnic cleansing battles."

When have Palestinians ethnically cleansed Israelis? Evidence?

"Anybody who has so dedicated attention to Israel-Palestine conflict, as yours, and continual puts an emphasis on Palestinians, talked about as a "whole group of people," to continual support against the zionists, is as racist as the Zionist. Both positions are racist. To say one is pro-Palestinian, by name, is a racist position in itself, I just don't see how you don't understand that."

Maybe because its a part of the world that I know about, have lived in, and have traveled in. When I see Platypus lying about and distorting the situation there, while showing a total disrespect for the colonized people and betraying Marxist principles by having a pro-Zionist in their group, I call Platypus out on that issue. No doubt, Platypus is lying and distorting a lot about anti-imperialist and workers struggles in South Asia and Latin America as well. One can sense this in the unrelentingly hostile and hateful tone directed toward the Cuban and Venezuelan revolutions at several Platypus forums.

Yes. a 'whole group of people'. I was describing your friends Zionist ideology, not anything I believed. Good job distorting what I said.

"..because after all I am just a petty-bourgeois leftist and you are content with being pro-Palestinian."

I'm 'content' with being pro-Afghan, pro-Iraqi, pro-Colombian, and in generations past I would be pro-black South African, pro-Nicaraguan, pro-Angolan, and pro-Vietnamese. I support the men, women, children, workers, and peasants of those countries who are being bombed, tortured, massacred, starved by imperialism. I choose to take the Leninist position and support the self-determination of oppressed nations, unlike you, apparently, who equates the nationalism of colonized nations with that of imperialist ones. Nice to see that, like the typical liberal you really are, you stand on a cloud, equate oppressors and oppressed and thus take the side of the former. Maybe the US Marines can go back in for another round of fun in Panama like they did 20 years ago and then we'll see your aloof, fake 'internationalism' at work then.


LAURIE:
You have said enough.

I would NEVER prefer a Panama under Noriega, and neither should you. You clearly don't know shit about what happened in Panama.

And if you think platypus lies, then there is no point in continuing a conversation.

ME:
Laurie-

Since when did I say anything positive about Noriega??? I condemned the American invasion of Panama, that doesn't translate into loving Noriega. Do you support Marines invading your country and killing thousands of people? Seriously?
I have family who lived under Saddam Hussein, some of whom were in the underground resistance against him. My grandfather's best friend was murdered by Saddam's secret police because he was a communist. Does that mean I have to cheerlead the invasion and destruction of Iraq by the United States, the same government that SUPPORTED Saddam for years(as it supported Noriega)? 1.3 million Iraqis and Iranians died because of Saddam in 24 years. 1.2 million Iraqis have died under the American occupation in the last 6 years. That's an improvement?
I don't know why I have to explain to someone who considers themselves a Marxist that people in any country need to get rid of their corrupt and dictatorial rulers themselves, without imperialism providing the 'white man's burden'.

Yes, Platypus does lie. I gave evidence for it in my essay. Sorry if the truth hurts.

[The Douche]

Platypus will be filling the ranks of neo-conservative think tanks for years to come.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's quite a bold statement there.

[The Douche]

That's quite a bold statement there.

Yeah, its a bit hyperbolic. I've read some valuable things from platypus in regards to SDS. (I have never met anybody from USAS so I don't have anything to say about that)

But really, the conversation posted by comrade Lyndon makes it quite clear that at the leadership level there is this underlying sense that imperialism is progressive, which is essentially the basis for a number of people abandoning Trotsky and creating neo-conservative thought.

Also, I don't really like platypus that much because they're very academic and have no interest in building a movement, just critiscizing the one that exists. Not that I am opposed to critiscism, but well, if you can identify the problems, then you need to do something to correct them.

[which doctor]

But really, the conversation posted by comrade Lyndon makes it quite clear that at the leadership level there is this underlying sense that imperialism is progressive, which is essentially the basis for a number of people abandoning Trotsky and creating neo-conservative thought.
It's not that platypus think imperialism is progressive, but we are wary of the consequences of being anti-imperialist at a time in history where there exists no suitable alternative, which leaves people supporting reactionary groups like the Ayatollah in Iran and the Baathists in Iraq. And you're characterization of the Shachtmanite turn to conservatism is misleading, since this had a lot more to do with cold war politics and fiercely anti-stalinist trotskyism than simply thinking imperialism is progressive. But on another note, I do think the development and concentration of capital is progressive from an economic standpoint since this is the precondition that makes international communism a realizable solution.


Also, I don't really like platypus that much because they're very academic
The funny thing about this is that academics think platypus is too 'radical' and that they're all a bunch of authoritarian vanguardists. Of course platypus is an intellectual project, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

and have no interest in building a movement,
This isn't true either. We'd love to see the possibility of socialist revolution put back on the table again, but what's in the way is all this bad leftism filtered through 90 years of inadequately dealing with the failure of international revolution.

just critiscizing the one that exists. Not that I am opposed to critiscism, but well, if you can identify the problems, then you need to do something to correct them.
Identifying the problem and creating a dialogue about it is the first and most pivotal step to finding a solution.

[Proletarian Ultra]

It's not that platypus think imperialism is progressive, but we are wary of the consequences of being anti-imperialist at a time in history where there exists no suitable alternative, which leaves people supporting reactionary groups like the Ayatollah in Iran and the Baathists in Iraq.

It's not that Mensheviks think the Great War is progressive, but we are wary of the consequences of being anti-imperialist at a time in history where there exists no suitable alternative, which leaves people supporting reactionary groups like the Sultan in Turkey and the Kaiserists in Germany.


The funny thing about this is that academics think platypus is too 'radical' and that they're all a bunch of authoritarian vanguardists. Of course platypus is an intellectual project, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Scratch a liberal, find a reactionary. Having been there myself, you have my (genuine) synpathy,


This isn't true either. We'd love to see the possibility of socialist revolution put back on the table again, but what's in the way is all this bad leftism filtered through 90 years of inadequately dealing with the failure of international revolution.

Identifying the problem and creating a dialogue about it is the first and most pivotal step to finding a solution.

Is not resolutely opposing imperialism part of the solution? BTW: Your apparent position on imperialism puts you well to the right of many bourgeois-progressives.

PS: In the same issue you've got an interview piece on Israel/Palestine. The "Palestinian" representative is Kurdish-American fatty Hussein Ibish, of the Dahlan Task Force for Israel. For real, dude? Lame.

[which doctor]

Is not resolutely opposing imperialism part of the solution?
I don't think you can make such broad generalizations about 'resolutely opposing imperialism.'

BTW: Your apparent position on imperialism puts you well to the right of many bourgeois-progressives.What is my apparent position on imperialism?


PS: In the same issue you've got an interview piece on Israel/Palestine. The "Palestinian" representative is Kurdish-American fatty Hussein Ibish, of the Dahlan Task Force for Israel. For real, dude? Lame.For one thing, it wasn't an interview, it was a debate that sought to bring together people from different political perspectives into dialogue. And Hussein Ibish wasn't the 'Palestinean representative,' so I don't know where you got that idea from. He was representing...himself. They had difficulty finding people to speak on this panel, so they were pretty much open to anything. Neither Ibish nor Kovel represent the 'platypus perspective.'

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think both of you conflate imperialist bullying (re. Iran) with inter-imperialist conflict.


It's not that Mensheviks think the Great War is progressive, but we are wary of the consequences of being anti-imperialist at a time in history where there exists no suitable alternative, which leaves people supporting reactionary groups like the Sultan in Turkey and the Kaiserists in Germany.

If the inter-imperialist WWI had occurred much earlier, outside of a revolutionary period in which there was no mass class hostility towards not-so-internally-confident capitalist regimes and mass party-movements for it to be channeled through, a German victory, especially at the expense of the British Empire, would have been progressive.

What made political support for WWI a crime against workers and humanity in general was that capitalist regimes (France, Germany, Russia, etc.) were politically ripe for overthrowing. Oh, and the Mensheviks were divided on WWI: the Defencists supported it, the Internationalists didn't. Meanwhile, "peace without annexations or indemnifications" was the ill-timed line of reformist pacifists like Bernstein and Jaures, with critical backing from renegades like Kautsky.

To both of you: If an inter-imperialist military conflict were to erupt between the declining US and ascending China or EU, but outside of a revolutionary period... (HINT: Only reactionaries would back the US side)

[Crux]

But on another note, I do think the development and concentration of capital is progressive from an economic standpoint since this is the precondition that makes international communism a realizable solution.
This is where you pave way for your little student group to cave under the pressure. But then again..

[Proletarian Ultra]

What is my apparent position on imperialism?

A moment ago, it was...


[T]here exists no suitable alternative

T.I.N.A.!!!


They had difficulty finding people to speak on this panel, so they were pretty much open to anything.

"Anything" anything? Or "prestige liberal authors and NGO spokeflacks" anything?

(Comrade Richter's historical elucidations are on point as always).

[black magick hustla]

I do think the development and concentration of capital is progressive from an economic standpoint since this is the precondition that makes international communism a realizable solution.



International communism is a possibility and necessity today. Capitalism has integrated every corner of earth into its apparatus. In the same sense detroit ghettos are as much integrated to American capitalism than Wall street.

[Barry Lyndon]

But on another note, I do think the development and concentration of capital is progressive from an economic standpoint since this is the precondition that makes international communism a realizable solution.The classic excuse for tailing after imperialism. Lenin rejected this stance nearly 90 years ago. Imperialism doesn't make international communism a realizable solution, the super-exploitation of the colonies(or in the 21st century, neo-colonies) enables the bourgeoisie to buy off the working class with crumbs, making them fat, politically apathetic, docile and unwilling to rebel. Imperialism sustains capitalism, therefore it is the duty of every Marxist, and certainly every Leninist, to oppose imperialism.


It's not that platypus think imperialism is progressive, but we are wary of the consequences of being anti-imperialist at a time in history where there exists no suitable alternative, which leaves people supporting reactionary groups like the Ayatollah in Iran and the Baathists in Iraq.A classic Platypus lie. There are 'suitable alternatives' to capitalist-imperialism in the world today, imperfect but they exist. What about the socialist movements in South America? What about the People's War in Nepal and India? Even in places like Afghanistan, there are groups like the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. But Platypus won't support them, it won't even mention them, because they are racist First World Chauvinists who hate Third World countries.

[Leo]

The Platypus Society is difficult to define, but to put it simply (if perhaps mildly misleading), they are an academic Marxist discussion forum. Yes, and that seems to be at the crux of the problem in my opinion.

When I look at their website, I see lots of quotes, references, nice anecdotes from history, well-thought examples, witty word-plays and so forth. Yet again, I have to dig in their articles very deep to get a feel of what sort of political positions they hold on numerous issues, and even then I only get a vague idea.

True, anti-intellectualism and disdain for theory are very harmful approaches, and political positions are weak if they aren't based on a solid theory. Intellectualism on the other hand is hardly any better, and if you don't deal with real material situations and develop positions about them, no matter how deep your theory is, it will be as distant from anything real as the clouds are from earth. That is, of course, not to say people who are involved with this project aren't political, although I would thing that aside from vague intellectual statements such as "the left is dead, long live the left" or general points like "we need to criticize", I would be very surprised to find that there is an actual unity on political positions among the participants of this project. That isn't to say that discussing with those involved wouldn't be worth doing, nor does it mean some of the articles aren't interesting. I don't think this is really the way to go forward, on the other hand.


It's not that platypus think imperialism is progressive, but we are wary of the consequences of being anti-imperialist at a time in history where there exists no suitable alternative, which leaves people supporting reactionary groups like the Ayatollah in Iran and the Baathists in Iraq. This position seems like a very dangerous one to me to be honest, because it is on the fringes of saying that the only alternative is between supporting American/Western imperialism or "supporting reactionary groups like the Ayatollah in Iran and the Baathists in Iraq". This is exactly the same logic the supporters of the latter approach this problem. Whoever one ends up supporting as a result of this logic, one reduces the workers to passive and insignificant pawns incapable of challenging the situation.


But on another note, I do think the development and concentration of capital is progressive from an economic standpoint since this is the precondition that makes international communism a realizable solution. This was, of course, perfectly true from a marxist perspective, although holding this position today would be gravely outdated. The question is whether that development is, or has been taking place and consequently whether international communism isn't possible or is possible. I would say that world capitalism (lead by, of course, the central capitalist powers) giving humanity a hell of a century full of wars, crises and massacres in a level unseen in the entire human history points out that capital is not developing anymore, but instead decaying.


The "Palestinian" representative is Kurdish-American fatty Hussein Ibish

Just on a side-note, he isn't Kurdish-American but Lebanese and Arab-American.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Just on a side-note, he isn't Kurdish-American but Lebanese and Arab-American.

He's of Kurdish and New York WASP/Dutch descent, but born in Lebanon.

[Leo]

No I think he's Arab, he won the "Arab American of the Year Award" according to wiki. In case you didn't know, Kurds aren't Arabs. Not that his ethnicity has got anything to do with what he says anyway.

[Proletarian Ultra]

No I think he's Arab, he won the "Arab American of the Year Award" according to wiki. In case you didn't know, Kurds aren't Arabs.

The Arab-Americab community is wonderfully accepting and anti-sectarian. Mere fact of being born in Lebanon is enough for them.


Hussein Ibish: This is an excellent question. First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I should tell you that I am myself of Kurdish extration and that the name "Ibish" is not an Arabic, but is in fact a Kurdish name.


http://www.ibishblog.com/article/2002/01/16/america_war_target_iraq

I can't find the interview where he talks about his mother's side, but he had a great-great-something-grandfather who was an original settler of Brooklyn, I think.


Not that his ethnicity has got anything to do with what he says anyway.

It doesn't. There's no shortage of people of "pure Arab blood" whose are equally accomodationist.

[which doctor]

The claim that platypus doesn't care about the third-world is ridiculous. One of platypus' strong points is a focus on Middle Eastern and South Asian labor issues and have included interacting with a number of Middle Eastern and South Asian labor, womens, and leftist organizations. That said, we don't think an international revolution will start in places like Nepal or South America, but rather in the first-world metropoles like New York, London, Paris, Chicago, Berlin, etc, so we take as our primary interest not rhetorically supporting third-world anti-imperialist movements, but in building a new north american left.


True, anti-intellectualism and disdain for theory are very harmful approaches, and political positions are weak if they aren't based on a solid theory. Intellectualism on the other hand is hardly any better, and if you don't deal with real material situations and develop positions about them, no matter how deep your theory is, it will be as distant from anything real as the clouds are from earth.
Platypus' theory is deeply informed by a practice that involves sorting through the various leftish positions on real material situations and critically analyzing the roots of these, and deciding what this means for us today. And considering its limited man and woman power, platypus is quite active and hardly an insular, elite campus talk shop.


That is, of course, not to say people who are involved with this project aren't political, although I would thing that aside from vague intellectual statements such as "the left is dead, long live the left" or general points like "we need to criticize", I would be very surprised to find that there is an actual unity on political positions among the participants of this project.
No, there is no unity of political positions. There is no 'statement of principles' or any other such thing that one must agree to to become a member. The single commonality amongst members is a critique of the existing left, and the desire to constitute a new international marxian left that can challenge and overcome capitalism. And the platypus review is an open submission journal open to many viewpoints. Despite this, there is a certain political consistency amongst members, though diversity of opinion is tolerated and these things get frequently debated.

The best explanatory texts of platypus are located here, including a defense of the common accusations made against us: http://platypus1917.org/the-platypus-synthesis/


This position seems like a very dangerous one to me to be honest, because it is on the fringes of saying that the only alternative is between supporting American/Western imperialism or "supporting reactionary groups like the Ayatollah in Iran and the Baathists in Iraq". This is exactly the same logic the supporters of the latter approach this problem. Whoever one ends up supporting as a result of this logic, one reduces the workers to passive and insignificant pawns incapable of challenging the situation.
I think the alternative is reconstructing an international left, something which does not exist currently, that is capable of extending solidarity to workers of all countries.

[CChocobo]

This platypus group sounds like nothing but some misguided youth. They twist and distort views of the left while holding this very elitist view of themselves. Not what's needed, and obviously their pro-zionist views are very questionable. I wonder if these nutcases supported the German occupation of France, or Poland, in the name of holy and righteous imperialism. It's evident they support the imperialism done by the U.S. in the name of capitalism and greed. I wouldn't partake in their meetings, only to argue perhaps and let them know how misguided they are..

We're better off reaching out to other workers and leftists and trying to organize as a whole.

[Ravachol]

I think deep anti-intellectualism is a silly and prevalent trend. for example, i was once discussing with an anarchist, and some students tried to form an "anarchist theory group" and she says she wants to read but she is too busy "organizing". i told her reading theory is important. then she asked about my politics and she said the difference between communists and anarchists are that anarchists are more cultural. lol. i told her this is not true and that ive known some anarchists who dont engage in that shit.

The whole false dichtomy between 'intellectuals' and 'activists' is as troublesome as the social division of labour. The idea that theory can be developped in bubble outside and cut loose from the material world is highly idealistic. Theory is born from material conditions and practice and is a reflection of these conditions. Theory ought to be a guiding vessel for any revolutionary movement but can only be developped, adapted and corrected when it is put into practice. Assumptions about the working class and it's behavior, composition and demands are worthless when not supported by actual facts obtained from the factory floor. In short, one cannot build a theory that is not rooted in practice.


But on another note, I do think the development and concentration of capital is progressive from an economic standpoint since this is the precondition that makes international communism a realizable solution.


If we consider communism the living movement of the working class refusing it's conditions in class society, as Marx did, communism always has, is and always will be a possibility. The concentration of capital often intensifies the accumulation process and thus confronts the worker more directly and intensely with the class relation, leading to heightened class conciousness. But this is not a pre-condition for communism. I think it is fair to say capital has expanded to cover almost all of the globe (save for some tribal societies and half-feudal systems in remote parts), not only in a geographical sense but in a social sense as well. The class relation and the logic of capital covers and dictates most of our daily interactions. Playing cheerleader for imperialism simply because it expands capital is, imo, a nonsense position. Even if capital is expanded to places where is wasn't dominant previously, the struggle for communism is possible as long as any class relation exists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Platypus student demographic needs to be of working-class background and aggressively pursue a working-class membership policy. Furthermore, the group should draft some sort of political program.

[KurtFF8]

This thread has turned more into the "Politics of the Platypus Review" than the "Politics of the Contemporary Student Left" where the latter I find to be a bit more important and relevant for discussion.