ŽIŽEK on Violence

A Permanent Economic Emergency

What is the Left to Do?

http://www.counterpunch.org/zizek10152010.html
By SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK 

Closely linked to the necessary de-fetishization of ‘democratic institutions’ is the de-fetishization of their negative counter-part: violence. For example, Badiou recently proposed exercising ‘defensive violence’ by means of building free domains at a distance from state power, subtracted from its reign (like the early Solidarnosc in Poland), and only resisting by force state attempts to crush and re-appropriate these ‘liberated zones’. The problem with this formula is that it relies on a deeply problematic distinction between the ‘normal’ functioning of the state apparatus and the ‘excessive’ exercise of state violence. But the ABC of Marxist notions of class struggle is the thesis that ‘peaceful’ social life is itself an expression of the (temporary) victory of one class—the ruling one. From the standpoint of the subordinated and oppressed, the very existence of the state, as an apparatus of class domination, is a fact of violence. Similarly, Robespierre argued that regicide is not justified by proving the King had committed any specific crime: the very existence of the King is a crime, an offence against the freedom of the people. In this strict sense, the use of force by the oppressed against the ruling class and its state is always ultimately ‘defensive’. If we do not concede this point, we volens nolens ‘normalize’ the state and accept its violence as merely a matter of contingent excesses. The standard liberal motto—that it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence, but it is never legitimate—is not sufficient. From the radical-emancipatory perspective, one should turn it around: for the oppressed, violence is always legitimate—since their very status is the result of violence—but never necessary: it is always a matter of strategic consideration whether to use force against the enemy or not.

No Longer the "Consumer of Last Resort"?

Asia: The Coming Fury

by Walden Bello

This process [export led growth] depended on the U.S. market. As long as U.S. consumers splurged, the export economies of East Asia could continue in high gear. The low U.S. savings rate was no barrier since credit was available on a grand scale. China and other Asian countries snapped up U.S. treasury bills and loaned massively to U.S. financial institutions, which in turn loaned to consumers and homebuyers. But now the U.S. credit economy has imploded, and the U.S. market is unlikely to serve as the same dynamic source of demand for a long time to come. As a result, Asia's export economies have been marooned....

U.S.-East Asia economic relations today resemble a chain-gang linking not only China and the United States but a host of other satellite economies. They are all linked to debt-financed middle-class spending in the United States, which has collapsed....

In China, about 20 million workers have lost their jobs in the last few months, many of them heading back to the countryside, where they will find little work. The authorities are rightly worried that what they label "mass group incidents," which have been increasing in the last decade, might spin out of control. With the safety valve of foreign demand for Indonesian and Filipino workers shut off, hundreds of thousands of workers are returning home to few jobs and dying farms. Suffering is likely to be accompanied by rising protest, as it already has in Vietnam, where strikes are spreading like wildfire. Korea, with its tradition of militant labor and peasant protest, is a ticking time bomb. Indeed, East Asia may be entering a period of radical protest and social revolution that went out of style when export-oriented industrialization became the fashion three decades ago.

The Elders of Zion Strike Again?

On Sunday night I had the opportunity to attend a dinner with Stephen Zunes at which he spoke on what we can expect in terms of US-ME policy in the Age of Obama. The occasion gave me an opportunity to revisit the controversy that surrounded the John Mearsheimer and Stephan Walt argument that the pro-Israel lobby weilds a "heavy - and malign influence upon the formulation of US Middle East policy."

In terms of the Mearsheimer-Walt argument, it was of course refreshing to hear the obvious stated by the Deans of the Realist school of International Relations. But many of those who have spent decades studying the effects of US policy in the Middle East objected strongly to the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, in that it overstated the influence of the Lobby and overlooked other factors such as American long-standing hegemonic designs in the region. What many of these critiques (from the Left) take special exception to, is the notion the US invaded Iraq because top level policymakers are beholden to the Lobby, and were therefore led to wage a war of aggression to "make Israel more secure" (in the words of Mearsheimer and Walt). For these critics, the Iraq invasion and other such policies must be explained in terms of US Grand Strategy- control of oil resources and access to military bases. In the words of Joseph Massad: "it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around."

But I wonder, if the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis is overstated, then how do we explain Obama's June 4 address to AIPAC? I don't believe that that speech can be accounted for in terms of US Grand Strategy - I think there is something more insidious at work - it has to do with the position of Palestine within the dominant American political culture and the structure of the American state. I think we need to step back from the structural realism (though I am, for the most part, a structural realist...) of Hans Morgenthau, and look closely at American class structure and the nature of bureaucratic politics in the US.

I believe that there is a danger, in the analysis of Massad, Zunes, Plitnick and Toesing, et al., of overstating the rationality and coherence of the American State and its Grand Strategic Designs. There is a danger of reifying the State and its interests, and assuming that said interests (economic, security, or otherwise) are natural, self-evident, or can somehow be logically deduced from the structure of the international system, rather than seeing said interests as socially constructed in a process that is as much discursive as it is material.

To my way of thinking, it is not Israel as such (a strategic object on a Grand Chess Board), but rather "Israel" as a symbol of American nationalism -- the cultural resonance of the New Jerusalem and the City on the Hill run deep among America's dominant social groups -- Israel as a symbol of strength and continued expansion in the post-Vietnam era when apparitions of American hegemonic decline haunt all policymakers. Unconditional ("non-negotiable") support for Israeli expansion has become code for continuity with the the 500 year American tradition of frontier expansion. By supporting Israeli colonization efforts, US policymakers signal their own commitment to "strength" in the face of "barbarism." It seems to me that a radical redefinition of the terms of American nationalism is in order if we're to see a truly transformative change in American politics and society. Until we (the Left) confront the pernicious cultural hegemony of Manifest Destiny and its Evil Twin Zionism, we'll remain ineffective in the face of the organized Money Power of The Lobby- and Palestinians will continue to pay a price in blood for our cowardice.

Centre-Right Nation?

Thoughts on Louis Hartz and The Liberal Tradition in America (1955):

Jon Thares Davidann critiques one of my favorite books by one of my favorite authors (Bruce Cumings, Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations at the End of the Century. Duke, 1999)

The second issue which is both a strength and weakness of the book is Cumings' reading of history in parts of the world outside of East Asia. He stretches the book into the literature of both American exceptionalism and world history approaches. His argument is informed substantially by his vast knowledge of East Asian history but unfortunately also informed by a more superficial reading of American and world history.

For instance, his discussion of the possibilities of reading the history of American exceptionalism (Toqueville, Hartz) as the history of the influence of the American middle class suffers from a weak grounding in the literature of American history. American historians have been doing battle over class and exceptionalism for some time, and it is clearer than ever now that Americans have had a class structure, not just a dominant middle class as Cumings suggests.

Even more importantly, American arguments for uniqueness were made possible by that most invisible of Americans, the African slave. Edmund S. Morgan argued in American Slavery American Freedom that a commitment to freedom was animated by the assurance of a captive underclass which would not be permitted under any circumstance to participate in politics. Consequently, while some can argue that the predominance of small landholders allowed Americans to bypass the worst European aspects of class inequality and pursue liberalism to a greater extent, race took the place of class as the most powerful dividing line in American history. Cumings misses all of this and ends up endorsing rather than critiquing the exceptionalist arguments of Toqueville and Hartz. And since the study of American exceptionalism can now be linked to a rapidly growing literature on world-wide nationalism, both American and Japanese arguments for uniqueness can be seen within the framework of modern nationalism, in which arguments for exceptionalism are simply the demand of the modern nation for uniqueness in a world of nations. See Prasenjit Duara's work for the most sophisticated analysis of the complex forms nationalism has taken.

(H-Diplo, July, 1999)

Will the real working class please stand up?

"Joe the (asst.) Plumer" as representative of the American working class... Hmmmn, "Corey D. B. Walker, assistant professor of Africana studies at Brown University and the author of A Noble Fight: African American Freemasons and the Struggle for Democracy in America" begs to differ.

Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, Conservatives bail on the Republican Party as a hopelessly compromised vessel and flock to the Obama band wagon.

What?! Something other than neo-liberal orthodoxy on the Farm?

Something exciting happened on campus and I missed it:

Author Naomi Klein Discusses Bailout, Economy at Stanford

American Bankster: Krugman as Finance Czar?

On Today's Democracy Now! Paul Krugman suggests that as Treasury Secretary he would send shivers down the spine of today's Robber Barrons. Its worth a try...

On a related note: APB, Have you seen this man:









Robert Rubin has gone missing. In the midst of this crisis we have heard a great deal about Phil Gramm and his merry band of market deregulators, but we seem to have overlooked the chief Fox in the Henhouse. It is interesting to note that after Rubin pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagall- the 1933 law which erected a firewall between commerical and investment banks (ie commerical banks- those which collect deposits) can not invest our savings in the latest Wall Street ponzi scheme (the ponzi scheme in the 1920, or at least one of them, was real estate specualtion in Florida), he went to work for the investment arm of Citigroup (the merger of the commerical bank Citicorp and the investment bank Travelers). ie, he took the job that he had just legalized.

The end of neo-liberalism?

Is this the end of neo-liberalism? Naomi Klein suggests not (also here). In her view, the ideological fantasy (nightmare) of self-regulating markets will rear its ugly head once again as soon as the storm passes, and now is the time to demand structural reform to defend against the predations that it underwrites. In her view the public debt obligation incurred over the course of this crisis will be used as leverage to push through unpopular reforms in the not-too-distant future. As an example, Obama will be under pressure moderate his already rather anemic (or at least stupidly complex) health-care reform proposals. Or similarly, stupid ideas like "Drill Here, Drill Now!" will gain traction, as people in a state of shock have a hard time keeping their critical faculties in tact (ie they might overlook the fact that oil produced in Alaska's northern slope will enter a world market and have no short or long term impact on local prices at Chevron. They might also be induced to overlook the most basic market principle: there are two ways to affect price: increase supply, or decrease demand. It would take 10 years to increase supply by bringing new sources online (the psychological impact of new exploration would be negligible), whereas we could cut demand virtually overnight. The fastest way to bring down the price of a gallon of gasoline is to demand less of it.

Alexander Cockburn reminds us that the " capitalist system is always in crisis. Crisis is integral to the system," and points out the fact that the two key figures behind the repeal of Glass-Steagall/ the Commodity Futures Modernization Act were John McCain money-man Phil Gram, and Obama money-man Robert Rubin. And he adds this:

"Three and a half years after Black Thursday, 1929, Roosevelt’s job was to bail out capitalism, which he did, with his advisers borrowing policies from Europe, both from Italian fascism and the socialist tradition.

If Obama becomes president what advisors will he recruit? Will he keep Rubin at his side along with his passel of Chicago School economists? His left supporters hope that he has a secret plan under wraps, that a populist T-shirt lies under the decorous mask of bipartisanship."

If Obama can manage to overcome the "Bubba vote" (Stanford study), Deibold the electoral college, and the supreme court, he will have indeed proved himself a super-hero.

Eric Margolis reminds us that historically, fiscal and economic crisis combined with military defeat has been a recipe for Revolution.

On the trillion dollar check to Paulson and his gang before they sneak out the door in November, Krugman says: "No Deal." If it was a matter of the state acquiring valuable assets that would be one thing, but subsidizing Wall Street's losses? No Deal.

Krugman on the "paradox of deleveraging." (ie when the selling of assets further depreciates their value).

TINA?

Sociologist Robert Engler on democratic alternatives to corporate globalization.

Klein and Cockburn on Disaster Capitalism

Naomi Klein defends her "shock doctrine" thesis against her Chicago School critics.

Patrick Cockburn assesses the book from a traditional Marxian perpsective and argues that Klein "overstates the the strength and mystery of the enemy" (to borrow Hunter S. Thompson's formulation). vitality of capitalism. For him the system is still doomed.

Naomi Klein on Obama

The Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein is interviewed on the task of holding Obama accountable to progressive demands such as ending US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reversing the growing income inequality in the US  (10 min. video). 

Are anti-war, pro-social justice votes taken for granted?

American Class Structure

Liberal economist Paul Krugman comments on American class structure here. Its interesting to note that when Obama was on Meet the Press a few weeks ago and was asked who is economic advisers would be he said: Robert "let's deregulate Wall Street" Rubin, and Lawrence "women can't do math" Summers. But he did not mention Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, or Robert Reich (all very mainstream, left-of-center economists). 

I fear that when the Right-Wing propaganda machine really gets going after Labor Day, Obama may regret having chided his "friends on the Left" for not listening to what he has been saying all along, and assuming that he would take adopt stronger positions on the the issues thatthey care about (War and the military industrial complex, social justice and the economy, ecology). I fear that Huffington and others will be proven correct, that it is a flawed electoral strategy to alienate Barack's base in an effort to peel off independents and moderate republicans. When it comes time to pull the lever for a black man, many "Obama Republicans" may find that they are more "Republican" than "Obama"; and many "Reagan Democrats" may find that they are more "Reagan" than "Democrat."  Obama: those people will not show up for you when the chips are down, best to know who your friends are (sort of an elementary point in any "power analysis"). Rather than trying to win over anti-abortion enthusiasts at Saddleback perhaps he should be mobilizing on the South Side of Chicago - speaking to the concerns of that constituency (which are broader than 'not feeding your kids "Pop-eye's" for breakfast' (I'm still waiting for him to come out against the "egg McMuffin meal"). 

I don't think its too late, I think the new campaign commercial that speaks to anxieties over meeting one's mortgage payments (while McCain tries to figure out how many homes his Sugar Mamma wife owns) is a good start. Of course I'd like to see him address the concerns of renters as well as home-owners, but its a good start anyway... He needs to go after McCain hard on his supply side, trickle down/ "pissed on," neo-liberal economic policies which only exacerbate the difficulties of the middle, working, and under classes. Of course this would require a little housecleaning within the Obama camp. I don't suppose that Robert Rubin or Jason Furman are big fans of economic redistribution schemes.

Obama needs to expand the size of the electoral pie. Winning a larger slice of existing voters is not an option. He needs to bring new voters into the system (probably at least 5-10 million) and he can only do this by appealing to their economic concerns.

A Consumers' Republic

Here Joe Bageant, a RedState Rebel, offers what may be the most brilliant political analysis I've read all season. He explains the Obama phenomenon in terms of the dual, and interrelated, ascendances of the cultural left and the economic right. We've entered into a new "post-partisan" age in which politics are totally devoid of meaning. All that matters is style and branding. We live in a Consumers' Republic. We choose presidents the way we choose cans of soda pop.  

An anthropological look at the struggle to defend the Iraq-Pakistan border

Here anthropologist William O. Beeman explains the weird rituals of the US-Iran war dance. Towards the end he makes an important point about the political leverage that an Absolute Enemy like Iran/US (in the various cultural contexts) offers. He references the common conspiracy theory that the US GOP will initiate and October Surprise war with Iran to help McCain's (otherwise dismal) chances at the polls. But he also mentions that all candidates stand to gain from the "Iran threat." All of the major candidates (Hillary, Obama, and McCain) have sought to demonstrate their "foreign policy credentials" by demonizing Iran. the threat from an enemy serves to silence dissent, and demobilize the citizenry. Most of all the super-bowl of the clash of civilizations makes sure that our attention remains directed safely away from any analysis of the distribution of class power both within the United States and globally. 

On McCain's effort to defend the Iraq-Pakistan border, watch this.