Oh, pragmatism, where art thou?

[Flavius]

I'm delving deeper into the Situationist International, lettrists, Tiqqun, and all things remotely related to them at the moment.

Problem is, that I like it. Which could be dangerous, because I'm already more of a fellow who is interested in theoretical and philosophical approach regarding politics (and the left in particular). In other words, I'm far from being a pragmatic person, and I feel this is not right. And I think that drifting towards more abstract forms of radical leftist thought will irrevocably give me the lifestyleist and maybe the pseudo-intellectual label too.

My question would be: what do you people think about these less pragmatic interpretations of the Left? Is it just postmodern french nonsense, or a legitimate stance of anti-capitalism?

(As with my question about the DPRK, I already have an opinion, but I'm very curious about what other - possibly more competent - people think.)

[blake 3:17]

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm very keen on the SI and the Surrealists and lots of weird theory stuff, and have managed to run a picket line or two.

[Hatshepsut]

Background on terms:

Postmodernism is a catch-all term for those schools in philosophy, art, and literature that reject modernist or positivist views still prevalent in the mid-20th century. Given that its methodology consists largely in Jacques Derrida’s nihilistic deconstruction tactics, while its sole affirmative statement tells us that reality is whatever we construe it to be, I rate Postmodernism as nonsense: Having little program of its own, it lives on tearing other ideas down. Although Michel Focault delivered a scathing criticism on the origin of the incarceration industry from a postmodern frame, Discipline and Punish (1975), which I can recommend.

Pragmatism is basically a philosophy of choosing ideas according to whether they work in practice, originating around 1870 in the USA. William James, a moral psychologist, was one of its early exponents. If James's quasi-religious takes on human character are left out of the picture, Pragmatism has a lot in its favor, in politics for instance advocating compromise on ideological purity for the sake of getting things done. Many people see that as treason, yet the staunch ideologues who draw loyal crowds rarely accomplish anything durable. Hitler relied on “level-headed” Nazis like Ernst Röhm to help him lay hands on the levers of German power, and once there, proved unable to build a state that would outlive him.After the collapse of Communism, the radical Left, now completely off the serious political stage, has not been in a position to be pragmatic. Pragmatism requires that one have workable options to choose from. So, leftists have increasingly turned to postmodern modes of thought which allow them to feel they are bringing about transformations in society when in fact they are not. That’s only my opinion, because I don’t see liberation movements such as Gay Pride taking a postmodern view of politics, or as being leftists for that matter, despite their colorful rhetoric, while others do consider them “Left.” Goes to show the difficulty of reaching basic agreement on definitions. But these movements have achieved their successes by shunning the far Left on major economic, foreign policy, and constitutional issues.

Under the influence of its founders in the arts world, SI switched to postmodernism long before the Berlin Wall fell. Its record lacks any credits that would make me prefer it, beginning with rejection of Marxism-Leninism. I don’t see how we can view it as a Marxist or socialist organization when it refused to accept basic premises of socialism. Its attack on what it called “cultural capitalism” was strictly negative, pointing out deficiencies in the private property state without proposing definite alternatives, indeed clinging to the same ascendancy of self that capitalism espouses. Like Gay Pride, they were about “empowering the individual.”

[Luís Henrique]

I think that drifting towards more abstract forms of radical leftist thought will irrevocably give me the lifestyleist and maybe the pseudo-intellectual label too.

If you are afraid of the label, then I think there isn't much that can be done for you. Be afraid of the possibility of political inactivism, of political isolation, of becoming a hypocrite or a farisee or an armchair revolutionary, be afraid of revolutionary apathy, if you see those things as possible outcomes.

But be never afraid of what others are going to call you, if you have actual convictions.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Flavius, keep digging deeper and do not stop. Philistinism is the true danger to the communist soul...

Do not yet worry about "pragmatic" questions. Those who abuse Marx, i.e. "The point is to change it" out of context only do so to ass-cover their own ideological weakness.

Keep at it. We need more of you here. We have a great over abundance of positivists, analytical philistines pretending to be Marxists. The "crazy French stuff" is invaluable. Never falter from critically understanding theory because the Anglo Saxon philistines comfortably abdicate a responsibility to dive into those hard questions by dismissing it as "crazy" or "nonsense".

[BIXX]

Flavius, keep digging deeper and do not stop. Philistinism is the true danger to the communist soul...

Do not yet worry about "pragmatic" questions. Those who abuse Marx, i.e. "The point is to change it" out of context only do so to ass-cover their own ideological weakness.

Keep at it. We need more of you here. We have a great over abundance of positivists, analytical philistines pretending to be Marxists. The "crazy French stuff" is invaluable. Never falter from critically understanding theory because the Anglo Saxon philistines comfortably abdicate a responsibility to dive into those hard questions by dismissing it as "crazy" or "nonsense".

Rafiq deserves rep.