You're all invited, Platypus Convention 2010, May 28-30

[which doctor]

http://xs.to/image-BC78_4BE59305.gif


Saturday and Sunday: School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 112 S. Michigan Ave.


The Platypus Affiliated Society is proud to announce its second annual International Convention, What is Left, and where to begin? Platypus has organized four days of activities. Starting on Wednesday May 26th with a film screening at University of Chicago’s Woodlawn Collaborative and Thursday with theater and poetry performances at Decima Musa in Pilsen. On Friday May 28th, the Platypus Affiliated Society will convene for the panel discussion on The Question of Imperialism in the 20th Century at School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC). On Saturday May 29th, Platypus will host a selective series of workshops, and panel discussions at SAIC, located on 112 S. Michigan Ave. Activities will focus on political and cultural issues that have shaped the Left historically and today. Sunday May 30th, Platypus members will be leading a series of talks on The Platypus Experience: Perspectives from three generations and The origins of today’s Left in the 1970s New Left. Saturday and Sunday spaces are limited and require registration. Visit (http://convention.platypus1917.org/?page_id=91)http://convention.platypus1917.org/?page_id=91 (http://convention.platypus1917.org/?page_id=91)to register.

Website (http://convention.platypus1917.org/)

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm coming, as are some of my friends. It'll be a hot time in the old town tonight.

[khad]

Could they have possibly picked a worse flyer design (or better, depends on whom you ask)?

It looks like Albert Speer superimposed on top of the Rising Sun.

http://nseuropa.org/English/Art/art9_files/221.jpg + http://www.veramarnavalproducts.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Raising-Sun_m.gif

=http://xs.to/image-BC78_4BE59305.gif ?

[Ismail]

Could they possibly have picked a worse flyer design (or better, depends on whom you ask)?

It looks like Albert Speer superimposed on top of the Rising Sun.
"What is Left, and where to begin?"
"The Left is dead. ALL HAIL NATIONAL SOCIALISM!"

[Glenn Beck]

oh my

is dat some social-fascism?

[gorillafuck]

Nobody ever actually told me what platypus is when I asked before. What is it?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Lets go to get lectured by armchair critics

GENIUS :)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Nobody ever actually told me what platypus is when I asked before. What is it?

Zionist elitist liberal anti-socialist youth organisation (discussion circle-jerk) that calls itself "socialist" or something to that degree.

[Revy]

The Question of Imperialism in the 20th Century

It's not the 20th century.....so I suppose it will be a historical lecture on the righteousness of the state of Israel. I think I'll pass....

[which doctor]

Way to go with your replies guys! You are only confirming our hypothesis that anti-intellectualism, anti-semitism, and the refusal to be self-critical are rampant on the so-called left!


Nobody ever actually told me what platypus is when I asked before. What is it?
Well a good place to start would be here (http://platypus1917.org/about/statement/).

[The Grey Blur]

which doctor have you ever considered the possibility that platypus is just yet another 'socialist' organisation, the sort which crops up every generation, who's hyper-intellectualism means they start saying silly things like 'the left is dead' simply because they have no relation to the class struggle themselves?

I can understand your objections to anti-intellectualism which seems to be a problem with the most opportunist groups on the left but if theory doesn't have any relation to practice then it's useless (vice versa also applies) and can be distorted to the lengths of providing support to imperialism/zionism etc (which i'm led to believe platypus does).

[which doctor]

which doctor have you ever considered the possibility that platypus is just yet another 'socialist' organisation, the sort which crops up every generation, who's hyper-intellectualism means they start saying silly things like 'the left is dead' simply because they have no relation to the class struggle themselves?
No. I won't deny that overintellectualism can become a problem of its own, and has so within platypus, but the accusation that they have no relation to the class struggle is just false.


I can understand your objections to anti-intellectualism which seems to be a problem with the most opportunist groups on the left but if theory doesn't have any relation to practice then it's useless
But platypus has a theory that informs their practice, so I don't know where you're coming from.


(vice versa also applies) and can be distorted to the lengths of providing support to imperialism/zionism etc (which i'm led to believe platypus does).
I understand why you are led to believing such things, given what many on this board say, but such an assumption is false and I encourage you to read their articles on your own.

[khad]

Moishe Postone is an uberzionist at that reactionary shithole UChicago, and your organization upholds him.

[PRC-UTE]

Could they have possibly picked a worse flyer design (or better, depends on whom you ask)?

It looks like Albert Speer superimposed on top of the Rising Sun.

http://nseuropa.org/English/Art/art9_files/221.jpg + http://www.veramarnavalproducts.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/Raising-Sun_m.gif

=http://xs.to/image-BC78_4BE59305.gif ?
I'm thinking that we are compelled to accept the honesty of their design at face value. After all such a group of great minds wouldn't make such an amateur mistake or by Freudian slip- must be intentional.

[Palingenisis]

Moishe Postone is an uberzionist at that reactionary shithole UChicago, and your organization upholds him.

The majior point about them is they keep talking about the "Left" as if it was some intellectual persuasion and basically a "nice idea" as opposed to an expression of class struggle. They are the utopian socialists back again without the redeeming features.

[Palingenisis]

Really meaningful way forwards come from analysising struggles that are going on now. The usefullness of older writings should be judged against that and not how "clever" they are.

[Barry Lyndon]

Way to go with your replies guys! You are only confirming our hypothesis that anti-intellectualism, anti-semitism, and the refusal to be self-critical are rampant on the so-called left!

So because we point out your closet Zionism, that makes us anti-Semites?

Self-criticism is not the same as parroting imperialist propaganda, which Platypus does over and over again, whether about Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Venezuela.

Your a well-read, well-educated idiot.

[bcbm]

i'll see about getting off work to come down for this. i'd rather go to bash back! but this is more in my geographic/price range.

[Wanted Man]

Way to go with your replies guys! You are only confirming our hypothesis that anti-intellectualism, anti-semitism, and the refusal to be self-critical are rampant on the so-called left!

Perhaps they want to be intellectual and self-critical, but they just don't want to involve you this process. Fair enough, IMO. Go ahead and have your circle jerk, but don't expect anyone from the "dead" left to treat you as if you're somehow part of the same movement.

And who expressed anti-semitism? Nobody did, so we'll just have to assume that you're using it as a "power word" to slander or intimidate critics. I guess that's the real, serious intellectualism that you're so fond of. Perhaps your next innovation in "intellectual" debate will be to ask opponents whether they've stopped beating their wives yet.

[bcbm]

wait i have to pay for this shit?

[Proletarian Ultra]

Could they have possibly picked a worse flyer design (or better, depends on whom you ask)?

It looks like Albert Speer superimposed on top of the Rising Sun.

This is the next step. Now they're done critically problematizing anti-imperialism to the point it means aerially incinerating pregnant Afghan women, they're gonna move on to anti-fascism next.

[gorillafuck]

Way to go with your replies guys! You are only confirming our hypothesis that anti-intellectualism, anti-semitism, and the refusal to be self-critical are rampant on the so-called left!
What has been said in this thread that is anti-semetic?

[Ravachol]

Zionist elitist liberal anti-socialist youth organisation (discussion circle-jerk) that calls itself "socialist" or something to that degree.

Now that's a bit of a far stretch.


Way to go with your replies guys! You are only confirming our hypothesis that anti-intellectualism, anti-semitism, and the refusal to be self-critical are rampant on the so-called left!


And that's a bit of a far stretch as well.

Nothing said in this thread can be considered anti-semitic and one should be highly cautious to use that word. The Anti-German Tendency uses it to smear all it's critics, the result being a boost to actual anti-semitism as they will claim 'any critic of Israel is smeared as an anti-semite by those Jews'. Like Fascism, Anti-Semitism (and Pro-Imperialism) are terms that ought to be used
with care.

As for the convention, while I, as an anti-imperialist and anti-zionist, wholeheartedly disagree the positions often espoused by articles in the Palatypus Review (whether they are official positions or not), I think it's interesting to debate the issue in a Communist context, if only to prevent the rise of actual Anti-German like tendencies in the American Left.

[which doctor]

What is anti-semitic in this thread are the delusions that platypus is some secret, conspiratorial zionist outfit. The fantasy that there exists this invisible, zionist conspiracy that aligns itself with the Washington-Israel consensus that is so omnipotent, its even sunk its teeth into platypus, is a ridiculous idea. This is where the allegations of platypus being some secret gov ops are coming from.These are classic anti-semitic motifs now used under the guise of 'anti-zionism.' To those of you who claim that anti-zionism isn't anti-semitism, I'm afraid that doesn't really mean anything when you are drawing from classical anti-semitic accusations to make your arguments.

[khad]

This is where the allegations of platypus being some secret gov ops are coming from.
No one in this thread has accused Platypus of being a front organization of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.

You fail at life, Zionist.

[Glenn Beck]

To those of you who claim that anti-zionism isn't anti-semitism, I'm afraid that doesn't really mean anything when you are drawing from classical anti-semitic accusations to make your arguments.

Whatever man, I hope your graveyard meeting goes well and they don't overcook the baby.

[which doctor]

No one in this thread has accused Platypus of being a front organization of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.

You fail at life, Zionist.
I'm not really interested in debating this with you, but numerous allusions of such ties to gov't orgs. have characterized the criticism of platypus, especially in some of the other threads. The specific one I'm thinking of now was when Barry Lyndon mentioned something about us giving his name to homeland security, but that's not the only example.

By the way, can't you think of something else to call me besides 'zionist'?

[Ismail]

By the way, can't you think of something else to call me besides 'zionist'?I can think of "liberal," "pseudo-leftist," "Hitchensite," "Shachtmanite," and it gets cruder from thereon.

But all of them just happen to be connected with Zionism.

[S.Artesian]

I'm not really interested in debating this with you, but numerous allusions of such ties to gov't orgs. have characterized the criticism of platypus, especially in some of the other threads. The specific one I'm thinking of now was when Barry Lyndon mentioned something about us giving his name to homeland security, but that's not the only example.

By the way, can't you think of something else to call me besides 'zionist'?

Maybe you can clarify things for me, since I don't pay any attention at all to online "zines," and have only read a few things from Platypus, sent to me by friends.

1. Does Platypus call for the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of US and allied forces from Afghanistan?

2. Does Platypus support the abolition, overthrow of the Israeli state and its replacement by a Palestinian revolutionary, non-denominational one that guarantees-- the right of return for all Palestinians in exile, the dismantling of all settler encampments on the West Bank?


Yes or no would be sufficient, and if the answer if "maybe" feel free to explain, but be prepared to be identified as an equivocator in the service of oppression.

[Wanted Man]

What is anti-semitic in this thread are the delusions that platypus is some secret, conspiratorial zionist outfit. The fantasy that there exists this invisible, zionist conspiracy that aligns itself with the Washington-Israel consensus that is so omnipotent, its even sunk its teeth into platypus, is a ridiculous idea. This is where the allegations of platypus being some secret gov ops are coming from.These are classic anti-semitic motifs now used under the guise of 'anti-zionism.' To those of you who claim that anti-zionism isn't anti-semitism, I'm afraid that doesn't really mean anything when you are drawing from classical anti-semitic accusations to make your arguments.

Who said that you were conspiratorial, or that a zionist conspiracy exists? Even if one did exist, they wouldn't bother with you lot. There is nothing conspiratorial about a bunch of students gathering up to defend their own imperialist nation. There are a great many student societies committed to that sort of thing, at least where I study. The difference is that they don't dress themselves up as "marxists", which makes things a bit easier for everyone involved.

Anyway, nobody said anything about conspiracies, and you know it. Could you try making a post that doesn't contain any lies next time, or is that a bit too much to ask?

[gorillafuck]

What is anti-semitic in this thread are the delusions that platypus is some secret, conspiratorial zionist outfit.
Nobody here said anything close to that.


The fantasy that there exists this invisible, zionist conspiracy that aligns itself with the Washington-Israel consensus that is so omnipotent, its even sunk its teeth into platypus, is a ridiculous idea.Nobody thinks zionism is some sort of conspiracy ran by the elite zionists. Israel steals land from locals and brutalizes Palestinians. There's nothing conspiracy-like in believing that, it's obvious.


To those of you who claim that anti-zionism isn't anti-semitism, I'm afraid that doesn't really mean anything when you are drawing from classical anti-semitic accusations to make your arguments.Show us where people have been doing this.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Which Doctor,

Will there be an open bar?

I'm curious about why the platypus? I know eagles and hawks are fascist symbols of war, and doves and lambs are wishy-washy types, but why not an aardvark?

[9]

This is the next step. Now they're done critically problematizing anti-imperialism to the point it means aerially incinerating pregnant Afghan women, they're gonna move on to anti-fascism next.

Yeah, 'cause anti-fascism has never been compatible with supporting the imperialist wars of the national bourgeoisie!



Oh, wait... :rolleyes:

[Kassad]

Is it strange that I have never heard of this organization before?

[S.Artesian]

I'm still waiting for the so-called WD to answer my 2 simple questions.

[which doctor]

I'm still waiting for the so-called WD to answer my 2 simple questions.
Platypus doesn't have a line, nor does it take positions. So the short answer to both of your questions is no.

[S.Artesian]

Platypus doesn't have a line, nor does it take positions. So the short answer to both of your questions is no.


I didn't ask for a line. But not taking a "position" on, meaning not providing and analysis of, US military action? On the future of the struggle in the Middle East?

What is Platypus then? A chat room? A club? A golf outing?

Why would anyone want to attend a convention, unless of course, as another comrade indicated, there's the possibility of an open bar?

But depite not taking a position-- you don't call for the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan, nor the replacement of the Israeli state. What do you stand for? Continued US military attacks in Afghanistan? Continued settlement by Israelis in the West Bank? Continued blockade of Gaza?

How do you justify calling anybody anti-semitic [which is a neat trick since Arabs are semitic] when you are agnostic about the real world?

[9]

An excerpt from a Platypus article entitled “Nothing Left to Say: A Critique of the Guardian Coverage of the 2008 Mumbai Attacks” (http://platypus1917.org/2009/02/03/nothing-left-to-say-a-critique-of-the-guardian%E2%80%99s-coverage-of-the-2008-mumbai-attacks/), written by Platypus Review “editor-in-chief”, Spencer A. Leonard:



However sincere its backers or belligerent its enemies, the “War on Terror” is not and cannot become anti-Islamist. This is not because, as some think, there is no Islamist or Taliban-style fascism on the receiving end of America’s War on Terror. Far from it. The reason is that the prosecutors of the war are only half committed to the selective elimination of certain religious reactionaries. In consequence, the War on Terror presents the Left with a dilemma: How to respond to apparently anti-fascist imperialism?

[…]

In the world Guardian writers prefer not to face, the Left is in no position to affect outcomes. Still, acknowledging circumstances and the Left’s exhaustion is the only way forward. For, to invert Marx’s famous thesis, we will not be in position to change the world, until and unless we understand it. And the crucial conditioning factor of current events is the death of the Left. 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. The Left has a stake in historical processes that at present it is powerless to affect.lol

I love how the only criticism to be found of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is basically that the US and NATO aren’t killing enough ‘Islamofascists‘.

It would also appear that Platypus has yet to catch word of this crazy new thing called ‘the working class‘. Come to think of it, I have read several Platypus articles recently, and to my memory I have not once seen any of the following terms: proletariat/working class, bourgeoisie/capitalist class, revolution. In place of each of these respectively, Platypus articles refer to: “the Left“, “Islamist fascists“, and “an emancipatory politics”. In comparison, even the DSA seems hella militant. :lol:

[Jazzratt]

The working class are anti-intellectual, didn't you get that memo 9? An emanipatory politic will only come about through the constant natter of people with higher level philosophy qualifications: sod the proles. :rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

What's the difference between Platypus and the authors of the Euston Manifesto?

Tacit alliance between the "left" and "islamo-fascism," because the left opposes the extension of US power? Bombing the people of Afghanistan into pieces?

WD-- don't take this personally, but if you have any tacit or overt connection with those "non-line, non-positions," you're a fucking disgrace. And I say that in the nicest way possible.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm not really interested in debating this with you, but numerous allusions of such ties to gov't orgs. have characterized the criticism of platypus, especially in some of the other threads. The specific one I'm thinking of now was when Barry Lyndon mentioned something about us giving his name to homeland security, but that's not the only example.

Yeah, and then you proceeded to post my real name for all to see, which you received an infraction for.

You are a truly revolting individual, and Platypus is a truly revolting group. Pumping out racist pro-imperialist propaganda, and its not coming from Stormfront, but a group of well-educated posh college graduate students.

[Proletarian Ultra]

No one in this thread has accused Platypus of being a front organization of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.

I have. Because I like to think the best of others.

I mean, how much more depraved would it be if you're advancing this reactionary bullshit for fucking free?

The State Department has been funding right-wing social democrats for ages. If you're not on the take, I would think worse of you.

[which doctor]

What most of you just don't *get* is that platypus isn't just another political organization that draws up a charter with a bunch of principled positions than expects the masses to flock to their flawless party line. People like S.Artesian expect platypus to pointlessly posture around certain hot-topic issues, like so many other groups. Seriously, what would it *mean* for platypus to call for the immediate removal of US troops from Afghanistan? - absolutely nothing. It's almost a useless gesture at this moment, and a position that seems to be more provoked by guilt than actually developing an alternative. Anti-war protests remind me more of a Save the Children commercial or an anti-abortion billboard with pictures of bloody fetuses on it, then a genuine attempt to build an international communist politics. The point is that there currently exists no emancipatory politics out there that only needs to be organized around. It is something that demands to be developed not only at the organizational level, but also at the intellectual level. This has no doubt been true since the beginning of early socialist movements, and is only more urgent of a task now, considering the state of leftist politics worldwide. Platypus is intended to function as the self-critique of Marxism as a whole, and our activities reflect this ethos, such as our open-submission journal and the conversations we host between all sorts of organizations and individuals that purport to be on 'the Left.'

That so many people are so incredibly hostile to such a project is truly telling. Its no wonder most of the reactions resort to petty name-calling, outright fabrications (platypus is not zionist, racist, pro-imperialist, etc.), or accusations that we don't use certain words often enough in our articles. I mean, seriously, the sun set on international socialist revolution long ago, the point now is reign it back in again, but we can only do this once we quit turning historical failures of the left into the most recent cause celebre. Also, Marxism isn't merely about making a virtue of class positions, but about the political directions which those class positions can move in, and at this level Communism is more a political project than a class project (though of course it is rooted in a Marxian understanding of class).

[Barry Lyndon]

What most of you just don't *get* is that platypus isn't just another political organization that draws up a charter with a bunch of principled positions than expects the masses to flock to their flawless party line. People like S.Artesian expect platypus to pointlessly posture around certain hot-topic issues, like so many other groups. Seriously, what would it *mean* for platypus to call for the immediate removal of US troops from Afghanistan? - absolutely nothing. It's almost a useless gesture at this moment, and a position that seems to be more provoked by guilt than actually developing an alternative. Anti-war protests remind me more of a Save the Children commercial or an anti-abortion billboard with pictures of bloody fetuses on it, then a genuine attempt to build an international communist politics. The point is that there currently exists no emancipatory politics out there that only needs to be organized around. It is something that demands to be developed not only at the organizational level, but also at the intellectual level. This has no doubt been true since the beginning of early socialist movements, and is only more urgent of a task now, considering the state of leftist politics worldwide. Platypus is intended to function as the self-critique of Marxism as a whole, and our activities reflect this ethos, such as our open-submission journal and the conversations we host between all sorts of organizations and individuals that purport to be on 'the Left.'

That so many people are so incredibly hostile to such a project is truly telling. Its no wonder most of the reactions resort to petty name-calling, outright fabrications (platypus is not zionist, racist, pro-imperialist, etc.), or accusations that we don't use certain words often enough in our articles. I mean, seriously, the sun set on international socialist revolution long ago, the point now is reign it back in again, but we can only do this once we quit turning historical failures of the left into the most recent cause celebre. Also, Marxism isn't merely about making a virtue of class positions, but about the political directions which those class positions can move in, and at this level Communism is more a political project than a class project (though of course it is rooted in a Marxian understanding of class).

The Social Democrats in 1914 made the exact same argument: "We can't possibly stop the war, so lets just 'not take a position' and line up behind our respective bourgieoisie!"

Whichdoctor, and Platypus by extension, don't like to 'take a position' on the butchery the imperialist hegemon they live in is committing on a daily basis. But they are very quick to take positions on the Bolivarian Revolution('psuedo socialist identity politics'), the uprising in Greece('fetishized confrontation with police'). If the what the US government is doing in Afghanistan is not your concern, then why do you think Venezuelans or Greeks would give a shit about what you have to say? Why engage in politics at all?

As for your charge that we are just moralistically preaching, I would say that it is fully possible to combine intellectual and theoretical rigor with a sense of moral outrage at the injustices of the capitalist system. The difference between the other people on this board and you is that at the end of the day we see Marxism as not some sort of interesting intellctual topic that you debate at seminars but as a tool to end the suffering of millions of real human beings who are being killed, starved, tortured, and exploited, day in and day out. The fact that you would claim that Christian evangelicals screaming about non-existent abortion murder are in any way equivalent to those that are upset about real cluster bombs dismembering real Afghan children indicates how out of touch with reality you are.

[Lyev]

Whichdoctor, and Platypus by extension, don't like to 'take a position' on the butchery the imperialist hegemon they live in is committing on a daily basis. But they are very quick to take positions on the Bolivarian Revolution('psuedo socialist identity politics'), the uprising in Greece('fetishized confrontation with police'). If the what the US government is doing in Afghanistan is not your concern, then why do you think Venezuelans or Greeks would give a shit about what you have to say? Why engage in politics at all?I don't really know anything about Platypus at all, but I would like to comment on this point anyway. There's a difference between "not taking a position" and realising that calling for the "immediate withdrawal of troops" will not do a lot. Furthermore, pointing out that this won't do an awful lot at the moment is not the same as "not taking a position". I think it's wrong to suggest that any leftist would be apathetic about an issue as massive as Afghanistan. I think whichdoctor's point was that he wants to question the actual tangible implications of calling for withdrawal of troops. As was mentioned, such a slogan, and an implied organisation or party that calls it, is not connected to a broader, international movement. Therefore such a slogan is like a minnow in an ocean; it just doesn't have much weight behind it. It needs popular support, which it -- and causes similar to anti-Afghanistan -- simply lack at the moment. There's no point in activism for activism's sake, so that you can prove to other leftists that you care about such a thing. It's glaringly obvious that we call deeply about the issues themselves, but what I object to though is other leftists taking the high ground as soon as they think someone else is not active or caring enough. But just because calling for withdrawal of troops won't happen when we call for it now, with the current state of left, does it mean we shouldn't call for it? Well, such a demand won't materialize until linked to a wider causes. And to acknowledge this doesn't mean someone is an imperialist-apologist or something ridiculous like that. Nor does it mean they have the blood of Afghan orphans on their hands or anything like that. It's totally unnecessary to suggest something like that, or whatever you said. Oh and the thing about Greece and Bolivia, is that there's already big, well-known leftist movements there, that have actually are in for a good chance of changing things. But, in the US and Britain, revolutionary leftists are stranded somewhat, and need to modify their thinking to suit this. Making demands bigger than ourselves, as has been said, doesn't do a lot. I don't think we'll progress but sitting on the same topics with the same views, unchanged since 100 years ago. It's like we're stuck in time. I think it's time for a shift in tactics, maybe. I hope I'm making sense, I could be way off anyway.

[S.Artesian]

What most of you just don't *get* is that platypus isn't just another political organization that draws up a charter with a bunch of principled positions than expects the masses to flock to their flawless party line. People like S.Artesian expect platypus to pointlessly posture around certain hot-topic issues, like so many other groups. Seriously, what would it *mean* for platypus to call for the immediate removal of US troops from Afghanistan? - absolutely nothing. It's almost a useless gesture at this moment, and a position that seems to be more provoked by guilt than actually developing an alternative. Anti-war protests remind me more of a Save the Children commercial or an anti-abortion billboard with pictures of bloody fetuses on it, then a genuine attempt to build an international communist politics. The point is that there currently exists no emancipatory politics out there that only needs to be organized around. It is something that demands to be developed not only at the organizational level, but also at the intellectual level. This has no doubt been true since the beginning of early socialist movements, and is only more urgent of a task now, considering the state of leftist politics worldwide. Platypus is intended to function as the self-critique of Marxism as a whole, and our activities reflect this ethos, such as our open-submission journal and the conversations we host between all sorts of organizations and individuals that purport to be on 'the Left.'

That so many people are so incredibly hostile to such a project is truly telling. Its no wonder most of the reactions resort to petty name-calling, outright fabrications (platypus is not zionist, racist, pro-imperialist, etc.), or accusations that we don't use certain words often enough in our articles. I mean, seriously, the sun set on international socialist revolution long ago, the point now is reign it back in again, but we can only do this once we quit turning historical failures of the left into the most recent cause celebre. Also, Marxism isn't merely about making a virtue of class positions, but about the political directions which those class positions can move in, and at this level Communism is more a political project than a class project (though of course it is rooted in a Marxian understanding of class).

Oh bullshit. All you offer are liberal platitudes. You talk "marxism," will you act in a manner that eviscerates Marxism.

Double bullshit. Platypus takes positions in its so-called self-criticism of Marxism when it publishes interviews with the like of Terry Glavin, provides softball questions and never probes into the origins of the conflict, the needs of the US bourgeoisie that drive the war in Afghanistan.

Silence is assent, and Platypus is much less than silent when it givers uncritical reproduction of the comments of those who do explicitly support the US involvement in Afghanistan; who do explicitly support Israeli occupation of the West Bank; blockade of Gaza etc.

Don't try and cover your faux intellectualism with the veneer of dispassionate Marxist self-criticism; and don't try to cover your assent to US policy in a faux intellectualism. That doesn't work with Marxism.

You look down at anti-war demonstrations because why? some of the participants are morally troubled and revolted by the carnage taken by US military actions? Some people are actually sickened and outraged by the destruction of Iraqi society and culture? By the toll the 12 years of sanctions took on the children of Iraq prior to this invasion?

You look down at these people? You should look up to these people since they don't cower behind a pseudo-intellectualism when it comes to assessing the reality of US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq; or the actions of Israel.

I'm not at all hostile to build an emancipatory politics-- I think those unsophisticated non self-critical non-Marxists are more important to the building such a movement, and are more likely to build that movement, then a collection of well-educated, equivocating, submissive cowards.

And cowards you, and your ilk at Platypus, truly are.

[S.Artesian]

I don't really know anything about Platypus at all, but I would like to comment on this point anyway. There's a difference between "not taking a position" and realising that calling for the "immediate withdrawal of troops" will not do a lot. Furthermore, pointing out that this won't do an awful lot at the moment is not the same as "not taking a position". I think it's wrong to suggest that any leftist would be apathetic about an issue as massive as Afghanistan. I think whichdoctor's point was that he wants to question the actual tangible implications of calling for withdrawal of troops. As was mentioned, such a slogan, and an implied organisation or party that calls it, is not connected to a broader, international movement. Therefore such a slogan is like a minnow in an ocean; it just doesn't have much weight behind it. It needs popular support, which it -- and causes similar to anti-Afghanistan -- simply lack at the moment. There's no point in activism for activism's sake, so that you can prove to other leftists that you care about such a thing. It's glaringly obvious that we call deeply about the issues themselves, but what I object to though is other leftists taking the high ground as soon as they think someone else is not active or caring enough. But just because calling for withdrawal of troops won't happen when we call for it now, with the current state of left, does it mean we shouldn't call for it? Well, such a demand won't materialize until linked to a wider causes. And to acknowledge this doesn't mean someone is an imperialist-apologist or something ridiculous like that. Nor does it mean they have the blood of Afghan orphans on their hands or anything like that. It's totally unnecessary to suggest something like that, or whatever you said. Oh and the thing about Greece and Bolivia, is that there's already big, well-known leftist movements there, that have actually are in for a good chance of changing things. But, in the US and Britain, revolutionary leftists are stranded somewhat, and need to modify their thinking to suit this. Making demands bigger than ourselves, as has been said, doesn't do a lot. I don't think we'll progress but sitting on the same topics with the same views, unchanged since 100 years ago. It's like we're stuck in time. I think it's time for a shift in tactics, maybe. I hope I'm making sense, I could be way off anyway.


Then why do they publish, without merciless criticism, an interview where the interviewee explicitly call for the US to continue its military engagement in Afghanistan?

[9]

...accusations that we don't use certain words often enough in our articles.

No, the "accusation" - really just an observation - was not actually about the words themselves, but about the subjects these words represent.
I mean, I have read almost all of the documents here (http://platypus1917.org/about/), and one could be forgiven for thinking, from reading the first several of them, that the Platypus isn’t actually aware that the working class exists, let alone that it’s been the key actor in the revolutionary movements of the last century and a half more or less, and that any defeat or “death” as well as any triumph or resuscitation of “The Left” (in the sense that Platypus means the word) is little more than a reflection of the corresponding state of the working class - that “The Left” (i.e. broadly, the socialist movement internationally) is only ever as strong as the working class is at any given time.
But the relationship between the working class and “The Left” seems to completely allude the Platypus. That was the point of my comment about the absence of ”certain words”. I think, for all Platypus’s talk about “The Death of The Left”, that its a pretty important point.


Artesian did a decent job of addressing your other points, but an important one was left:

Also, Marxism isn't merely about making a virtue of class positions, but about the political directions which those class positions can move in, and at this level Communism is more a political project than a class project

What does this mean?

[Lyev]

Then why do they publish, without merciless criticism, an interview where the interviewee explicitly call for the US to continue its military engagement in Afghanistan?I don't know, I know nothing about Platypus. I was just trying to address that one specific point. Where is this article? Can you direct me towards it?

[Lyev]

What does this mean?I think this means, in the simplest terms possible, that the global far-left movement at the moment -- at least in the developed, western world -- is small and fairly weak. Therefore we are restricted to campaigning in the way of demonstrations; standing in elections; selling newspapers and propaganda; protesting against local (and global) issues etc., but if we were part of a bigger "class" project, rather than limited to a "political", then our movement would have a much stronger voice. I think what is meant by it is that, at the moment, we're fairly isolated, and leftism is quite a closed circle. Maybe, at times, it's sometimes esoteric. It's a basic fact of Marxism theory that it's the proletariat, and the proletariat only, who have the only true position in class society viable for over-throwing the bourgeois domination of capital. If we were part of a "class" project then we would have much bigger swathes of proletarians amongst our ranks. I think this is what whichdoctor was getting at, anyway. Maybe I am talking nonsense.

[S.Artesian]

I don't know, I know nothing about Platypus. I was just trying to address that one specific point. Where is this article? Can you direct me towards it?

The interview with Terry Glavin is here:

http://platypus1917.org/2009/02/01/afghanistan-internationalism-and-the-left-an-interview-with-terry-glavin/


You got to love W.Doctor's agnosticism-- "Platypus doesn't take positions." What a crock of shit. Their own statement of purpose says Platypus recognizes the need to attend "left events," arguing that its, Platypus', very presence will have a "corrosive affect" on the left as Platypus will ask questions that the left can't answer.

That's fucking hilarious, given WD's "know nothing" response.

What kind of "tough questions" can these clowns ask if they themselves don't have an answer to the simplest question of all: Where's the class divide, and on which side of that divide do you stand?

Have to say I've been to a lot of left events and I've never heard one question asked to any group where that group didn't have an answer-- may not have been the right answer but there was always an answer.

Would love however to ask Platypus some questions. Apparently they can't or won't answer as a collective, as an organization-- which makes their organization akin to a corporation-- where they, as a corporation, can always duck the liability, and shed it onto this or that individual.

Fuck 'em, and in spades, the double-rat supercilious bastards.

Feel free to quote me.

[9]

I think this means, in the simplest terms possible, that the global far-left movement at the moment -- at least in the developed, western world -- is small and fairly weak. Therefore we are restricted to campaigning in the way of demonstrations; standing in elections; selling newspapers and propaganda; protesting against local (and global) issues etc., but if we were part of a bigger "class" project, rather than limited to a "political", then our movement would have a much stronger voice. I think what is meant by it is that, at the moment, we're fairly isolated, and leftism is quite a closed circle. Maybe, at times, it's sometimes esoteric. It's a basic fact of Marxism theory that it's the proletariat, and the proletariat only, who have the only true position in class society viable for over-throwing the bourgeois domination of capital. If we were part of a "class" project then we would have much bigger swathes of proletarians amongst our ranks. I think this is what whichdoctor was getting at, anyway. Maybe I am talking nonsense.

I'm not sure that this is what was being said at all, actually; it struck me as something quite the opposite. But it is hard to say either way until there is clarification.

[Martin Blank]

What kind of "tough questions" can these clowns ask if they themselves don't have an answer to the simplest question of all: Where's the class divide, and on which side of that divide do you stand?

But they have answered it: Class doesn't matter. That was the meaning of WD's comment about their idea of "communism" being "more a political project than a class project".

To put it another way, Platypus is a management course for aspiring "leaders" of the workers' movement drawn (mostly) from the petty bourgeoisie. Of course, they have to compete with other "radical" HR management societies, like Solidarity, and the not-so-"radical" schools, like the business unions, but why should that stop them?

[Die Neue Zeit]

To put it another way, Platypus is a management course for aspiring "leaders" of the workers' movement drawn (mostly) from the petty bourgeoisie. Of course, they have to compete with other "radical" HR management societies, like Solidarity, and the not-so-"radical" schools, like the business unions, but why should that stop them?

You're overcomplimenting Platypus "management."

Real-world management, especially over something like the size of a mass worker movement (i.e., a multinational corporation) involves things like Mission Statements, Management Discussion and Analysis, and many other documented aspects of strategic planning.

That they reject things like political programs is to their detriment.

[which doctor]

Whichdoctor, and Platypus by extension, don't like to 'take a position' on the butchery the imperialist hegemon they live in is committing on a daily basis. But they are very quick to take positions on the Bolivarian Revolution('psuedo socialist identity politics'), the uprising in Greece('fetishized confrontation with police'). If the what the US government is doing in Afghanistan is not your concern, then why do you think Venezuelans or Greeks would give a shit about what you have to say? Why engage in politics at all?
I really can't argue with you if all you do is misinterpret what I say.


As for your charge that we are just moralistically preaching, I would say that it is fully possible to combine intellectual and theoretical rigor with a sense of moral outrage at the injustices of the capitalist system.I disagree and believe the two things are best kept separate, especially since one so often clouds the judgement of the other.


The difference between the other people on this board and you is that at the end of the day we see Marxism as not some sort of interesting intellctual topic that you debate at seminars but as a tool to end the suffering of millions of real human beings who are being killed, starved, tortured, and exploited, day in and day out.I am a Marxist because I want socialism and I understand it as the next stage, so to speak, of human development. Furthermore, I realize that Marxism may very well not provide a solution to the most oppressed, exploited, and poor people of this globe. Instead, it offers a solution to the industrial proletariat, where ever they may be, and this has always been the case.


You look down at anti-war demonstrations because why? some of the participants are morally troubled and revolted by the carnage taken by US military actions? Some people are actually sickened and outraged by the destruction of Iraqi society and culture? By the toll the 12 years of sanctions took on the children of Iraq prior to this invasion?
Your response here is indicative of how the anti-war movement only sees *half* the picture, and is motivated more by anti-Americanism than a genuine international solidarity. Where was the outrage when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? Where was the outrage when the religious police of the Taliban were beating women in public? Where is the outrage over the so-called resistance movement's preference for a fundamentalist theocracy over a secular democracy?

Your anti-imperialism gives you tunnel vision.


What does this mean?
It means that the problem isn't necessarily that the left's politics haven't been 'working-class' but that they've been bad politics. But furthermore, my point is that there can be no such thing as 'working-class politics' under capitalism. I understand this may cause you to gasp and cover your mouth with your hand, but it should really come as no surprise. There can exist such a thing as working-class organization, such as trade-unions, but as soon as these organizations become political, such as when they advocate something like the 8-hour work day for all workers, they become bourgeois insofar as they rely on bourgeois categories and advocate bourgeois demands, such as ones right to negotiate the terms of sale for their property (i.e. their labour-power).Of course, that these are essentially bourgeois demands, does not mean they are to be avoided. Thus, what's problematic is the tendency to discredit something by simply labeling it 'bourgeois.' All politics in capitalism are bourgeois politics. Once the working-class becomes political, it ceases to be merely the domain of the working-class, by virtue of it becoming political. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat is best understood as the highest form of bourgeois capitalism, insofar as it raises the proletariat to the level of the bourgeoisie.


To put it another way, Platypus is a management course for aspiring "leaders" of the workers' movement drawn (mostly) from the petty bourgeoisie. Of course, they have to compete with other "radical" HR management societies, like Solidarity, and the not-so-"radical" schools, like the business unions, but why should that stop them?
:rolleyes: So you're an old crank, we know.



That they reject things like political programs is to their detriment.
Its not that these things are rejected, but that they aren't viewed as the best next step to take. If Platypus were to draft a political programme right now, it would fall on deaf ears.

[S.Artesian]

Your response here is indicative of how the anti-war movement only sees *half* the picture, and is motivated more by anti-Americanism than a genuine international solidarity. Where was the outrage when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? Where was the outrage when the religious police of the Taliban were beating women in public? Where is the outrage over the so-called resistance movement's preference for a fundamentalist theocracy over a secular democracy?

Your anti-imperialism gives you tunnel vision.




This means of course, that you and your Platypus ilk only see half the picture and your pro-imperialism gives you no vision, since those who have taken the lead in organizing opposition to the US invasion are those who opposed Saddam and the Ba'athists back when he was the US's cats paw against Iran [wait, I'm sure WD will now say "Aha! See? I mean half-see? You support the mullahs." Nope, always opposed the mullahs and their hi-jacking of the Iranian revolution and destruction of the workers councils]. Those who have been in the forefront of demanding immediate withdrawal are the same people are those who opposed any US support to the fundamentalists [and the non-fundamentalist northern warlords] in Afghanistan back when the US was busy supplying them with Stingers.

Short version: WD's "argument" rests of a deliberate, if unspoken, distortion. Nice to see that all that faux erudition is packed together with a real lack of integrity.



As for the rank and file-- movements don't spring full blown from the foreheads of graduate students. It, the movement, begins, has to begin at some imperfect, non-fully developed point. That's why it's a movement, moron. If it popped into a social struggle fully developed, organized around the totality of the abolition of capitalism in all its variants, well it would already be a revolution, wouldn't it?

Those who participate in the anti-war demonstrations don't ignore, or duck, or justify, or embrace, the Taliban or the Ba'athists. They don't deny Saddam's actions against the Kurds; or the Taliban's actions against women; but Saddam's actions against the Kurds and the Taliban's actions against women are not the reasons the United States is waging these wars. The US is waging these wars because it is a capitalism and needs to wage these wars.

Your pseudo-arguments are nothing but an evasion, and an excuse for maintaining passivity, for immobilizing those who want to begin the struggle against capitalism. Your pseudo-arguments are in fact nothing but a justification of the status quo.

[cska]

I hate nothing more than a bunch of intellectuals criticizing communist and anti-imperialist movements for not fully following the intellectuals' doctrine. I suggest you, and for that matter, anyone who wishes to engage in petty sectarian politics read Parenti's excellent article: http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2009/01/27/left_anticommun_1.php

[which doctor]

This means of course, that you and your Platypus ilk only see half the picture and your pro-imperialism gives you no vision, since those who have taken the lead in organizing opposition to the US invasion are those who opposed Saddam and the Ba'athists back when he was the US's cats paw against Iran [wait, I'm sure WD will now say "Aha! See? I mean half-see? You support the mullahs." Nope, always opposed the mullahs and their hi-jacking of the Iranian revolution and destruction of the workers councils]. Those who have been in the forefront of demanding immediate withdrawal are the same people are those who opposed any US support to the fundamentalists [and the non-fundamentalist northern warlords] in Afghanistan back when the US was busy supplying them with Stingers.
I don't think this is true, especially when you have people like Ramsey Clarke, one of the early founders of A.N.S.W.E.R., the US's most prominent 'anti-imperialist' front group, defending someone like Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqi people. Talk about 'solidarity' :rolleyes:




As for the rank and file-- movements don't spring full blown from the foreheads of graduate students. It, the movement, begins, has to begin at some imperfect, non-fully developed point. That's why it's a movement, moron. If it popped into a social struggle fully developed, organized around the totality of the abolition of capitalism in all its variants, well it would already be a revolution, wouldn't it?
Why do you keep using 'grad student' so perjoratively? Grad students are probably in the minority in platypus. Besides, I don't even know what you are talking about here. I never said that movements would spring full blown from peoples foreheads, and I have no clue how you could have gotten that out of what I said.


Those who participate in the anti-war demonstrations don't ignore, or duck, or justify, or embrace, the Taliban or the Ba'athists.
This isn't true either, not when you have people treating the so-called 'resistance' as if they were the Vietcong or something.


The US is waging these wars because it is a capitalism and needs to wage these wars.
Nice to see you understand things so mechanistically :rolleyes:


Your pseudo-arguments are nothing but an evasion, and an excuse for maintaining passivity, for immobilizing those who want to begin the struggle against capitalism. Your pseudo-arguments are in fact nothing but a justification of the status quo.
Hah! I think its the other way around. You guys are the ones trying to justify the Left's status-quo!


I hate nothing more than a bunch of intellectuals criticizing communist and anti-imperialist movements for not fully following the intellectuals' doctrine. I suggest you, and for that matter, anyone who wishes to engage in petty sectarian politics read Parenti's excellent article: http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblo...ticommun_1.php (http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/2009/01/27/left_anticommun_1.php)
If you are suggesting that political movements can't be, nor should they be, criticized, then frankly, you're an idiot and not someone who's seriously engaged in the project of building a Marxist politics. By the way, I read Parenti's article, but I don't see how it applies at all to platypus. I agree with Parenti's criticism of people like Chomsky, but what Parenti appears to ignore, is the undeniable conservative turn that Stalin made compared to Lenin, signaling the first death knell for the Marxist Left. By the way, you should read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09.htm) by Marx. I'll provide some quotes to save you the trouble:

Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to.
The reform of consciousness consists only in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in awakening it out of its dream about itself, in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions. Our whole object can only be – as is also the case in Feuerbach’s criticism of religion – to give religious and philosophical questions the form corresponding to man who has become conscious of himself.
Hence, our motto must be: reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but by analysing the mystical consciousness that is unintelligible to itself, whether it manifests itself in a religious or a political form. It will then become evident that the world has long dreamed of possessing something of which it has only to be conscious in order to possess it in reality. It will become evident that it is not a question of drawing a great mental dividing line between past and future, but of realising the thoughts of the past. Lastly, it will become evident that mankind is not beginning a new work, but is consciously carrying into effect its old work.
In short, therefore, we can formulate the trend of our journal as being: self-clarification (critical philosophy) to be gained by the present time of its struggles and desires. This is a work for the world and for us. It can be only the work of united forces. It is a matter of a confession, and nothing more. In order to secure remission of its sins, mankind has only to declare them for what they actually are.

[Barry Lyndon]

I don't think this is true, especially when you have people like Ramsey Clarke, one of the early founders of A.N.S.W.E.R., the US's most prominent 'anti-imperialist' front group, defending someone like Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqi people. Talk about 'solidarity' :rolleyes:




Why do you keep using 'grad student' so perjoratively? Grad students are probably in the minority in platypus. Besides, I don't even know what you are talking about here. I never said that movements would spring full blown from peoples foreheads, and I have no clue how you could have gotten that out of what I said.


This isn't true either, not when you have people treating the so-called 'resistance' as if they were the Vietcong or something.


Nice to see you understand things so mechanistically :rolleyes:


Hah! I think its the other way around. You guys are the ones trying to justify the Left's status-quo!


You have spent so much time talking about how your own journal's articles don't represent Platypus as a whole, and then you use one person's irresponsible behavior to throw dirt on all anti-war protesters. Talk about double standards.

Also, I am part Iraqi and my grandfather's best friend was tortured to death by Saddam Hussein's secret police because he was a Communist, so I don't need to be preached to by the likes of you about being insufficiently critical of the Baathists. Your ahistorical view of things leaves out that it is precisely because of extensive US imperialist support for despots like Saddam that the revolutionary left in Iraq and elsewhere was exterminated and Islamic fundamentalists filled the vacuum of resistance to foreign imperialism.

Your contrasting of the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents with the Viet Cong is bullshit. People of your ideological stripe were denouncing the Viet Cong in the 1960's because they were allegedly 'Stalinist'. It's also an uncritical swallowing of imperialist propaganda to presume that the only people who resist US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq are Islamic fundamentalists(the former commander of British forces in Basra estimated that most of the insurgents were not Islamists but secular Iraqi nationalists). How do you know that is the case? Because CNN tells you? Basically, all you do is engage in endless excuses for never taking the side of those who are under attack from imperialism.

On Planet Platypus, applying the Leninist analysis of imperialism to the war in Afghanistan is 'mechanistic'. As opposed to the more sophisticated analysis that drone bombers are liberating women and spreading democracy.

As for the long Karl Marx quote, it takes a well-educated idiot like you to read from Marx that which would come to most normal people through common sense- that supporting workers and anti-imperialist struggles should not mean that we should mute our criticism of such movements flaws. But there is a difference between doing that an merely parroting the capitalist's arguments verbatim. Karl Marx may have duly noted that the Indian Mutiny of 1857 was led by backward, feudalistic elements in India's society, but that did not stop him from tirelessly exposing the brutality and hypocrisy of British colonialism. He did that in the 19th century, why are you incapable of doing that in the 21st?

[khad]

I think it's been pretty well established in this thread that platypus are a bunch of elitist, white supremacist, imperialist petit-bourgeois. Thank you for clarifying your positions, wd.

[S.Artesian]

I think it's been pretty well established in this thread that platypus are a bunch of elitist, white supremacist, imperialist petit-bourgeois. Thank you for clarifying your positions, wd.


And that really does say it all.

[Martin Blank]

:rolleyes: So you're an old crank, we know.

My, what an incredibly cogent and insightful answer! Now I can see why you're in Platypus.


It means that the problem isn't necessarily that the left's politics haven't been 'working-class' but that they've been bad politics. But furthermore, my point is that there can be no such thing as 'working-class politics' under capitalism. I understand this may cause you to gasp and cover your mouth with your hand, but it should really come as no surprise. There can exist such a thing as working-class organization, such as trade-unions, but as soon as these organizations become political, such as when they advocate something like the 8-hour work day for all workers, they become bourgeois insofar as they rely on bourgeois categories and advocate bourgeois demands, such as ones right to negotiate the terms of sale for their property (i.e. their labour-power). Of course, that these are essentially bourgeois demands, does not mean they are to be avoided. Thus, what's problematic is the tendency to discredit something by simply labeling it 'bourgeois.' All politics in capitalism are bourgeois politics. Once the working-class becomes political, it ceases to be merely the domain of the working-class, by virtue of it becoming political. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat is best understood as the highest form of bourgeois capitalism, insofar as it raises the proletariat to the level of the bourgeoisie.

If we accept the logic of the above paragraph, then everyone here who speaks English have all become English (or American, or Australian, etc.). This transformation is carried out merely by the utterance of words and phrases, not by any material change that actually takes place. This is the central failure of the Platypus method: it is based on a metaphysical idealism that reduces the failures of the workers' movement to "bad politics" -- to "bad" thoughts in the heads of individuals, not social relationships and their interactions.

I will give credit where it is due and thank Platypus for being up-front and honest about their petty-bourgeois idealist methodology. Most left organizations try to hang all manner of "materialist" accoutrement on their idealism to disguise its true nature. But not Platypus.

But this is as far as my congenial extensions will take me, because Platypus is, in my view, an enemy of the working class. By rejecting the role of class in politics, by reducing everything to "good" or "bad" politics, Platypus places political action on the same "left-right" scale that the bourgeoisie uses. Revolution is no longer a part of the equation, except as a radical expression of liberalism. One only needs to keep nudging things to the left -- to keep "reforming" exploitation and oppression -- in order to reach that "highest form of bourgeois capitalism". You can even utilize the existing center-left political parties to achieve this goal since, after all, they already tack left when appealing for votes. It's just a matter of nudging them a little farther left.

This also answers what DNZ saw as an "overcomplimenting" of Platypus. DNZ pointed out that Platypus has no program of their own. That's understandable. When you reject class out of hand and reduce your politics to the bourgeoisie's "left-right" structure, you don't actually need a program of your own. The liberal bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie provide the program; as the left flank of the exploiting and oppressing classes, all that is necessary for you to provide is the proper "critique" that appeals to the socially-progressive sentiments of that section of the ruling classes.

[S.Artesian]

I don't think this is true, especially when you have people like Ramsey Clarke, one of the early founders of A.N.S.W.E.R., the US's most prominent 'anti-imperialist' front group, defending someone like Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqi people. Talk about 'solidarity' :rolleyes:

WTF does Ramsey Clarke, a lawyer, insisting on "due process" for Saddam Hussein have to do with the US invasion of Iraq and the obligation to oppose that invasion? Not a fucking thing.


Why do you keep using 'grad student' so perjoratively? Grad students are probably in the minority in platypus. Besides, I don't even know what you are talking about here. I never said that movements would spring full blown from peoples foreheads, and I have no clue how you could have gotten that out of what I said.

Why do you misspell "pejoratively"? I use the term pejoratively pejoratively when describing supercilious sanctimonious double-talking academics and academic types who acquiesce to capitalist oppression while pretending to be opposed to it.



This isn't true either, not when you have people treating the so-called 'resistance' as if they were the Vietcong or something.

First off, you're full of shit. Nobody, and I mean nobody, confuses Islamic fundamentalists with the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, or the North Vietnamese Army. Secondly, even if some people do, so fucking what? The overwhelming majority do not; you yourself admit that when you sneer at the "moral motivation" of the demonstrators. So you won't, what, work to organize demonstrations because somebody who doesn't agree with you might show up? Might wave a flag, you don't like? Hey, I hate the US flag, but you think I should exclude migrant laborers in the US demonstrating against La Migra because they want to carry an American flag?

Anybody out there remember the Republic Window workers in Chicago who took over their factory? They had an US flag. Does that disqualify them from being part of the working class? Does that make their action of occupation any less important?




Nice to see you understand things so mechanistically :rolleyes:

Yeah that's one of my enduring flaws-- materialism I think we call it. The bourgeoisie do what they do, because it serves their interests. Silly me. I forgot. Lots of them where grad students too. They have a deeper understanding like the Platypus fucks do.

[Die Neue Zeit]

IFurthermore, I realize that Marxism may very well not provide a solution to the most oppressed, exploited, and poor people of this globe. Instead, it offers a solution to the industrial proletariat, where ever they may be, and this has always been the case.

After having read at least part of my work (I hope), what's your definition of "industrial proletariat"?


But furthermore, my point is that there can be no such thing as 'working-class politics' under capitalism. I understand this may cause you to gasp and cover your mouth with your hand, but it should really come as no surprise. There can exist such a thing as working-class organization, such as trade-unions, but as soon as these organizations become political, such as when they advocate something like the 8-hour work day for all workers, they become bourgeois insofar as they rely on bourgeois categories and advocate bourgeois demands, such as ones right to negotiate the terms of sale for their property (i.e. their labour-power).

I think you're lost in a forest here.

Unlike the state, politics is a very neutral concept. How is advocating the stuff in my Theory thread "To Begin With" supposedly "relying on bourgeois categories and advocating bourgeois demands"?

Also, since when was labour power a form of property?


Once the working-class becomes political, it ceases to be merely the domain of the working-class, by virtue of it becoming political. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat is best understood as the highest form of bourgeois capitalism, insofar as it raises the proletariat to the level of the bourgeoisie.

Sorry, I think you're way off here. Once the working class becomes political, politics under bourgeois power over commodity production ceases to become the domain of the bourgeoisie.

Also, the working class becoming political doesn't mean its political instrument all of a sudden becomes a Volkspartei ("people's party").

The DOTP is the political crust most suited to the highest form of the commodity mode(s) of production, just before going to the lower phase of the communist mode of production (no intermediary socialist modes, hint, hint).


Its not that these things are rejected, but that they aren't viewed as the best next step to take. If Platypus were to draft a political programme right now, it would fall on deaf ears.

You know what they say about assuming things: it makes an ass out of you and me. You're assuming you've got no audience at all.

[black magick hustla]

if this is what studying politics at the university level gets you to think about why not have spent all that money in a nice coke habit??????????????

[black magick hustla]

i dont get the outrage btw. its just a student group in some overpriced art department i mean these exist everywhere and most of them have shit politics. yes these people have overpriced humanities degrees but anybody who is a communist knows that shit doesnt matter so who cares. personally i would have blowned that money in some nasty self destructive habit but thats just me

[gorillafuck]

Your response here is indicative of how the anti-war movement only sees *half* the picture, and is motivated more by anti-Americanism than a genuine international solidarity. Where was the outrage when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? Where was the outrage when the religious police of the Taliban were beating women in public? Where is the outrage over the so-called resistance movement's preference for a fundamentalist theocracy over a secular democracy?
I do find things such as gassing Kurds outrageous. Saddam was a monster. But what was the American left supposed to do? Call for America to bomb the shit out of Iraq and kill millions? There's no use in "exposing" Iraq in the same way that America needs to be. And speaking of which, America gave Saddam weapons. But you knew that.

Everyone who even knows what Platypus is knows that platypus is a shit group that exists to try to troll the left while at the same time not being right wingers. It's pretty obvious.

[Wanted Man]

So, how was it? Disappointing that the convention ended just one day too early to schedule in an extra talk about how "Massacring ships full of peace activists is way awesome"? Too bad. :(

Luckily, some things are a bit more fun:


From 1989–92, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, to the Los Angeles Riots and the election of Bill Clinton, Cutrone was a youth member of the Spartacist League, U.S. section of the International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist), upholding the revolutionary socialist tradition of Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky and the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917.

http://chriscutrone.platypus1917.org/?page_id=2

:lol: People change, eh?

[Ravachol]

I love Cutrone's elitist comments:



Note to advocates of today’s already obsolete early 1990s-era rehabilitation of Situationism and other post-1960s politics of anarchism, autonomia, “post-work,” etc.: If you find yourself disagreeing with all or several of the most outstanding historical Marxist critical theorists and political actors listed above and/or the enlightened thought about modern humanity from the 17th–19th centuries from which the best Marxists drew and developed their insights, you can be sure that you are in denial and not on any road to recovery.
(..)
Debord’s suicide — motivated very differently from Benjamin’s, Debord being more pathetic than tragic — should stand as a warning to any and all of his wannabe followers.


Hah, if that isn't Idealist fantasism betraying an elitism rarely encountered I don't know what it is :rolleyes:
The whole 'argument' is rooted in an Argument from authority and ad Hominem attacks...



but anarchism is nevertheless a symptomatic regression to pre-Marxian socialism (of Proudhon et al.).


Someone tell this Joker to get a proper education, honestly Proudhon? :rolleyes:...

Has anyone else noticed the hillarious title reading 'Chris Cutrone is the last marxist' :laugh:

With all due respect but somebody please tell me this is a joke right?

[Honggweilo]

is it just me or is platypus a joke founded by some old chicago-boys frathouse?

[S.Artesian]

It's not just you.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because the original poster has been banned, this thread should be closed.

[Martin Blank]

Because the original poster has been banned, this thread should be closed.

Good point. Thread closed.