JK: Garbriel Gonzalez pens this Guest Blog from Paris, France, complete with all the trappings of postmodern neomarxist 'discourse'. The hell of it is, when he's done you realize he may actually have a point when he talks about "...the reduction of leftist politics to a tool of late imperialist capitalism."
Genius satire? Or coherent argument? Or both? You decide.
*The False Bourgeois Consciousness Of The Left: Towards A New Hermeneutic*
by Gabriel Gonzalez
_"I am not a Marxist"_ – Karl Marx
The debate over the war in Iraq has exposed a gaping chasm between the Left's rhetoric of opposition to Western domination and imperialism in the cause of championing a progressive and nominally pro-third world agenda and the hard "reality" implied by the concrete positions it actually espouses. The contradictions between left-wing anti-war moralism and the horrors of an oppressive police state have laid bare the symptomatically flawed dialectic within leftist discourse. This is most manifest in the structuration of current leftist dogma articulating a set of ideological themes that share as their central focus a neo-capitalist reconceptualization of exploitation and oppression within a narrow range of political discourse. These dominant leftist themes are:
# anti-globalization,
# an uncompromising and essentialist pacifism,
# an extreme desexualized feminism, and
# a pro-Palestinian (anti-Israeli) ideology.
On all of these issues, whilst the Left views itself as externalizing positions and motivations in opposition to global capitalism and empire and in favor of liberation from exploitation, in reality, these positions and motivations reveal themselves to be objectively pro-capitalist. Indeed, they reflect two related political facts: (1) the false bourgeois consciousness inherent in leftist ideology and (2) the reduction of leftist politics to a tool of late imperialist capitalism.
Anti-Globalization
The left's opposition to globalization is clearly not motivated by a concern for "true" liberation from oppression – i.e., intrinsically and independently self-validating – or for the interests of third world peoples, who largely favor free trade and open markets as a means towards sustainable development. Indeed, leftist narratives, upon closer examination, tend to advocate the localization of surplus value within advanced capitalist societies, thus promoting inequality and, more important, allowing the resolution of conflictualities arising out of the concentration of increasingly diffuse – and hence uncontrolled - means of production within a dialectic that is both satisfying and depolarizing.
The outcomes are reflected in the form of increased capitalist exploitation of labor in pre-proletarian advanced economies, coupled with increased imperialist domination in pre-capitalist societies. The exportation of such dominant ludic pedagogies to third world elites perpetuates the system of patriarchal imperial capitalism on a global scale in which such elites are complicit, even if unconsciously so, thereby maintaining, and demonstrating, the force of the substructural determinants of the dominant ideological, self-referential narrativity of bourgeois values. Leftist ideology thereby contributes to the defense of capitalist systems and the impoverishment of the developing world.
Pacifism
Leftist pacifism in its virtually absolutist form is subliminally blind to the contradictions of systemic un-freedom. The uncertainty created by imperial and neo-colonial belligerency has a negative effect on the global stability necessary to the extraction of "profit" from labor exploitation. Thus, capitalist systems are by nature averse to the instability and consequent loss of surplus value from domestic and foreign exploitation of proletariat subgroups occasioned by war. Big business abhors war as an impediment to production.
Thus, whilst the material conditions of "free" enterprise-based systems of exploitation reveal a dialectic of confrontation of oppression and anti-oppression engendering nascent forms of liberation within communities such as Iraq and Iran, the de facto abnegation reflected through leftist false consciousness serves to perpetuate capitalist oppression, both in its post-industrial and post-colonial manifestations. Leftist pacifism consequently is but an unwitting instrument wielding itself as an "arm" to defend the pro-capital status quo based on exploitation.
Leftist Feminism
The Left has been at the forefront of the liberation of women and the systemic introduction of women into the capitalist marketplace. Such liberation manifests itself as the commodification of femininity as productive "value", thereby increasing the supply and reducing the cost of exploitable labor inputs placed at the disposal of the dominant class.
Such reconceptualization of the pre-conceptual (or non-conceptual) feminine as commodity is (de)lineated in the realm of the superstructural and dis(semen)ated as an ideology of de-genderization of the proletariat and in(semen)ated through legal statuses that are transposed according to a paradigm of freedom/un-freedom by a coercive state reflecting the primordial needs of capitalist patriarchy. Thus, the opposition masculine/feminine is emasculated and defeminized into the asexual synthetic relation labor/surplus value. Thus does leftist dogma promote the exploitation of woman through their "capitalization" tied to productive technologies.
Pro-Palestinian
While the juxtapositions "Jew/Non-Jew", "Oppressed/Oppressor" necessarily engage us in a (pre)symbolic situationalist network of arbitrary valorizations and aporias (far too complex to resolve here into an intelligibility capable of "significance"), the otherwise inexplicable embrace by the Left of the Palestinian cause as a central component of its ideology symptomatically reflects the dominant protocols of mid- to late capitalist patriarchies.
Indeed, the Palestinians are the symbolic and phenomenological manifestation of the increasing post-colonial dialectic of diminished imperialist control over natural resources, in particular oil, now concentrated within Arab (and post-Arab) societies whose own dominant classes require Western adherence to reflected productive ideologies supporting domestic oppression and a (de)humanized violence against (in)nocent civilians.
In simpler terms, the capitalist system is co-dependent on a continuous supply of oil as well as a justificational and ideologically coherent basis – in the form of anti-Zionism / pro-Palestinianism – adapted to those needs and contextualized within a segment of the radicalized proletariat who, by virtue of its positionality, can most credibly advance it within a self-contradictory dynamic in which inconsistency is meaningful. The Left thereby serves as an ideological platform for continued capitalist control over oil resources.
Conclusion
The above are intended merely as illustrations of an urgent praxis calling for a more meta-subjectivist retheorization of leftist political critique self-sustainingly capable of moving beyond the essentialist discourses generated by the material conditions of production and towards a new hermeneutic free of the alienative constraints of bourgeois narratives and counter-narratives. It is possible that, despite their good faith, proponents of leftist political ideology shall be destined to remain trapped within forces of historical materialism beyond their control or consciousness.
FOLLOW-UP: So... what do you think? Satire, or serious argument? Here's the inside story.
<June Cleaver voice>
I speak jive!!
</Cleaver>
...actually he gets double points because he both mocks the rhetoric and makes some valid points.
The policies of the looney left, if implemented would go a long way toward simultaneously immiserating the population of the Third World and making the population of the First World feel good about itself.
But here in California, we've seen what self-esteem based curricula can do.
Welcome!!
A.L.
Some valid points, yah.
But a few things that are, IMO, common errors in appraising/critiquing this phenomenon and thus, IMO, unhelpful.
Lets just go at "Pacifism" - The pacifist veneer is very superficial. Scratch it even lightly and we find a reveling in the romanticism of Revolution, a much greater willingness to understand and find explicable violent acts (including deliberately against civilians) when engaged in by (to use Thomas Sowell's term) "Mascots" (thus the internal contradiction in the critique between the "Pacifism" and the "Pro-Palestinianism" elements; it isn't the non-violent, moderate elements in Palestinian society that the Left that Gonzalez is analyzing identify with. It is precisely the more extreme elements.
The long love affair with Che, with the Panthers, with Franz Fanon's vision, and all. What we see are expressions of admiration for Ghandi but a identification with the methods of revolutionary violence.
This is often confused with pacifism because they consistently believe that we should not resort to violence. All this amounts to, though, is that they do not believe Western Civilization is fighting for - but they are often willing to entertain the idea it is worth fighting against. (I do not think this is an unfair characterization and I think that the "rebuttal" to this would in large part consist of rationalizations for why this is appropriate given a belief that Western Civilization is uniquely the font of racism, slavery, classism, sexism, exploitation, &tc &tc ad nausium - prooving rather than refuting the point).
But that means that this isn't principled pacifism (violence is never acceptable) - those who are "opressed and exploited", the Damned of the Earth, have just cause to rise up if that is the only way to overthrow their imperialistic, colonialist opressors. But of course the opressors do not have just cause to resist such a uprising.
So it's not pacifism as such though it's often confused with that (because these movements have expropriated the nome de guerre of "Peace Movement" and the like, but for them, as for many of us, peace is achieved through victory. They just hope to see the other side triumph over "opressive" Western "domination", especially AmerikkkanHaliburtunBushCheneyNAZIFascism).
God Damn! All this Marxist twaddle makes my head hurt, and it's all 3-day old BS that ain't worth the ground underneath the crapping bull.
Great parody (or is it
Shades of Alan Sokal's prank on the journal Social Text. Brilliant -- if intentional.
I'll hold on the 'parody/sarcasm' pronouncement, as it MAY have been unintentional self-parody.
My clues? The assumptions that capitalism IS (unfairly) exploitative [and that distinction, fair and unfair exploitation, is another clue] and as such falls loosely into 4 areas which we, the Left, can articulate...
Another clue is the 'inherent activation of rhetorical obfuscation by reification of poly-syllabic formulatives not specifically dis-allowed by ideative-examinative processes' which is NOT something he said, but is definitely a fair example of his way of speaking, a way which increases the difficulty of understanding WHAT he's saying, all the while using big words in a proclaimed desire to clarify the questions being examined.
"It was clear as mud, but it covered the ground...
the con-fu-sion made me head go round...
If the woman peeyabah, and the man, peeyabah
And the tonton, collbacka lemon-grass
The lily root, gully root, belly-root UNH!
And the Famous Granny scratch scratch!"
H. Belafonte, noted Leftist Apologist and Theorist
The Gonzalez piece is either not particularly serious, or (if serious) not particularly competent. Any more-than-cursory examination of the Left, worldwide, reveals three prevailing themes -- a) nature worship expressed as radical environmentalism b) a generalised rejection of technology, and c) virulent hatred for Western Civilisation.
The GMO food issue, for example, has such vehemence because it is at the intersection of all three themes.
The intellectual ancestry of current Left-think is clearly (and predeominantly) in the line of Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). That Heidegger was a leading philosophe of the Nazi movement has either been forgotten, or conveniently ignored.
On the whole, however, the Gonzalez piece reminds me of a joke commonly played on new farm hands. When a machine breaks down they are sent to town with the broken part, but have been informed (and told to explain at the service counter) that "the disgronificator is completely deflammulated."
Amongst the world's [m]academia nuts the disgronificator is indeed completely deflammulated.
What makes the Left far more dangerous than a batty uncle in the upstairs room is the fact that for nearly fifteen years they have been the nexus not only of Heideggerian neo-Nazis, but also of neo-Communists in the tradition of Gramsci.
These are people who will confiscate your wealth and attempt to control your lives if given half a chance. That is no laughing matter.
"...structuration..."?
"...conflictualities..."?
"...phenomenological..."?
Ugggh! I vote for unintentional self-parody. This guy sounds like the jail-house philosopher from In Living Color.
The reason Marx is not a Marxist is that he believed that capitalism with all it's painful aspects had to triumph before communism could triumph. He believed that without the advance of capitalism to it's end stage that communism wouldn't have the necessary resources.
What is interesting about Marx is that he institutionalized Jewish 19th Century ghetto culture. Communists are people who want to live in a Jewish economic culture developed to deal with extreme external political and social stress.
It is one of the reasons the kibutzim in Israel are dying out as communal institutions. Insufficient economic and political stress.
The conclusion paragraph is a classic.
Translation of the conclusion: the left is clueless.
LOL
I have seen posts by GGonzales before, and he can be very lucid, so I think this is intentional parody.
Absolutely. Great article on this syndrome in particular.
Garbriel Gozalez
??? typo?
I think it's
Gabriel Gonzales
Brilliant satire! That read just like the jacket description of "Reluctant Warriors: Re-Evaluating and Imperialism the Urban Revolutionary Struggle" (which I was forced to purchase for my Political Economy class in college). I especially loved the swipe at leftists -- false bougouise consciousness leftists -- although quoting Marx to criticise leftists doesn't sting quite as much ever since Noam Chomsky supplanted Marx as the leading leftist theorist.
My only criticism is that you didn't use the word "contextualizing" nearly enough.
I guess I agree with everyone. I had frankly never read Sokal's parody, but just have, and am amazed to find how much the themes and a lot of the language is actually similar. Actually, I think you could trace far left themes and language to the romanticism of Che or the angst of Heiddeger, or even to John Locke or John Stuart Mill or puritans or Rousseau or whomever. Hey, maybe I am losing my mind! Actually, I think the key turning point for the Left was when Clairol came out with Herbal Essence Shampoo: the ultimate romantic projection of naturist animist revolutionary anti-science themes into that superstructure sitting atop your scalp. Before that it was all about Ph and some liquid formulated by a guy in a white coat.
Brilliant! That is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. Kudos to Gabriel Gonzalez!
"BushisworsethanHitlerSatanandKennyG"
Worse than Kenny G!?! Alright, them's fightin' words....
Katzman,
We'll let Kenny G live if you take back Celine.
I'm sorry, clue, you leave us no choice. Celine Dione is hereby sentenced to stay in your country for the rest of her days.
That's unConstitutionally cruel and unusual. The woman's Vegas dressing room is twice the size of my house.
Can we send you Whitney Houston?
It reads just like a normative theory article in the American Political Science Review, except I actually understood some of it. Ergo, it has to be parody.
Gee, what a shame that OUR constitution has no such clauses. The key test we have to meet is "reasonably justified in a free and democratic society." Hmm, cruelty to Americans vs. Canadian peace of mind... don't like your odds there, clue.
Why don't you bundle them all up with Michael Bolton and Mariah Carey send them on a goodwill tour of Iran? We'll throw in Rita "MOAB" McNeil, but you'll have to supply the C-5 to get her into theater.
For a catchy name, I suggest "The Win Without War Tour 2003."
Oh no, if anybody's riding a MOAB into Tehran, it's Toby Keith.
Rita isn't riding a MOAB, clue. She IS the MOAB.
no go area i don chop then $10.600
I've read some of popper's The Open society, and I also read Marx. To me Marx was a man with a great insight into social structure, and yes he certainly was a leftist, but i'd like to mention that in either extreme there is tremendous amount of injustice, of course created solely by humans.
It doesn't really matter if Marx was leftist or not, the important thing to notice is that, somewhat like Darwin said, it is progress (i.e. evolution) that clarifies things, and Marx was someone in the course of evolution of humanity, who noticed the corruptive nature of free society. For one thing, no society is free, neither are its members, for at all times they are bound to rules, and are chained down by traditions, and most of the time the bulk of any society's members are absolutely unaware of the extent of false consciousness in their society. It is very simple, human brain is the processor of information, and any processor is subject to err if the information it requires for decision making is insufficient or corrupted, and so Marx provided humanity, and with that every individual human brain, with an insight into social structures that certainly helps in making better decisions and choices, at least in retrospect to social issues.
That article is totally B.S., it doesn't depicts reality about what socialists, or at least what real socialist movements want to do. if most leftist governments have made errors its because history is not like math, it's not an exact science. But i don't know why do you attack pro-environmentalism so much, and why do you attack and hate feminism, and why do you love Israel zionist state so much. When according to statistics and proofs, Israel has been indeed a fascist state, and capitalism as an ideology and praxis puts bread on table for about 10-30% of any society and starves the remaining 70%, i mean your article in descrediting Socialism doesn't work coz it's not backed by any statistics. Cuba (even with an Embargo) has one of the highest human development indexes of Latin America. And Cuba is not even a complete socialist system, it's a laboratory toward socialism