Posts
Rise of the Faux-cialists
By Michael Weiss / June 18, 2007When Karl Marx famously said that events and figures appear twice, first as tragedy, then as farce, he might have been referring to today’s glut of hand-me-down Marxist kitsch. Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, pseudo-radicals had long prostituted the socialist revolutionary tradition as a cheap reference for bumper sticker fatuities. The revolution will not be televised. Yes, well, it wasn’t ever supposed to be. The situation is even worse now that so-called “anti-globalization” activists blithely don Che Guevara t-shirts yet think Das Kapital – the most pro-globalization text ever written – is the latest post-punk sensation out of Hamburg.
Fascism in its worst, most medieval form is once again an ideological menace, and indigence has kept apace with exploding populations that are still too fettered by venal regimes to benefit from the market economy. It’s vital that there are socialists and social democrats in our midst serious about helping the working class, rescuing victims of genocide, and establishing parliamentary democracy on the ruins of lethal dictatorships. The left owes it to itself to identify and root out today’s species of buffoonish and sinister politicos claiming Marxist discipleship but demonstrating only moral and philosophical poverty. What follows is a troika of the worst poseur Marxists—faux-cialists, if you like—plus three world leaders who are actually literate in radical politics and willing to put their knowledge to good use.
Latin America: The Authoritarian and the Reformer
The Poseur: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
For someone who claims to be putting Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution into practice throughout South America, Chavez has a curious way of bolstering the proletariat. In December 2000, he demanded that elections for the country’s powerful labor unions be monitored by the state, an act of provocation that led to vehement denunciations by international labor organizations. In Trotskyist terms, when a state encroaches upon labor unions, fascism isn’t far behind.
Donald Rumsfeld did himself no favors by comparing Chavez to Adolf Hitler. But on the face of it, Chavez’s reign actually has lately come to resemble national socialism. In 2001, Chavez passed his very own Enabling Act, granting himself rule by decree for a entire year—a constitutionally illegitimate move that led to the call for a general strike by the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers. He recently incurred the wrath of global press watchdog groups like Reporters Without Borders after he used the 2003 “Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television,” which prohibits strenuous criticism of his regime, to shut down a major oppositional television network.
Chavez has a committed following among the neo-Nazis in Germany’s anti-globalization movement, coalescent around that country’s National-Democratic Party. (Say what you will about the tenets of the original, Dude, at least it was an ethos.) Chavez’s chummy relationship with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Argentina’s laureate of Holocaust denial Norberto Ceresole has also earned him the rightful suspicion of South American Jews.
At the economic level, he’s no better. Chavez uses none of his country’s petrodollars to invest in industrialization or infrastructure, which explains Venezuela’s mounting inflation. (Most economists predict that when the bubble bursts, the results will be disastrous.) Instead of centralized egalitarianism, he prefers a kind of ingratiating Catholic almsgiving.
The Real Deal: Brazilian President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva
Lula, who got his start as a union leader, made a name for himself bravely agitating for the popular election of the country’s president, which up until then was named by a martially disposed Congress. His Fome Zero (Zero Hunger) anti-poverty campaign, unlike that of chavismo, has been both pragmatic and systemic—combating child labor, delivering water to semi-arid territories, and offering financial assistance to low-income parents in exchange for their pledge to educate and vaccinate their children. Lula has administered an Accelerated Growth Program that invests in Brazil’s infrastructure by building and repairing roads and railways, revamping the country’s Byzantine tax code, and modernizing its energy sector.
On foreign policy, Lula has also been consistently shrewd and impressive, lending Brazilian peacekeeping troops to Haiti in one of its many hours of turmoil, establishing trade surpluses and, pace critics who find him too soft on yanqui style market economics, placing strategic tariffs on international financial transactions in order to help developing countries. He’s also done in Brazil what our own government stupidly refuses to do here: block wasteful farm subsidies.
Europe: The Gangster and the Physician
The Poseur: British MP George Galloway
How many British MPs can you name who’ve spent Christmas disco dancing with Tariq Aziz and joked about male pattern baldness with Uday Hussein? With his promiscuous attraction to all types of murderous dictator, the Scottish politician George Galloway manages to be both a textbook reactionary and sui generis at the same time.
Galloway was expelled from the Labor Party for his routine hosannas for the Baathist and Bin Ladenist “resistance” in Iraq. He’s echoed Vladimir Putin in saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy of his life. In 1994, he told Saddam Hussein, whose suborning of suicide-murderers in Israel Galloway heartily approved, “I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem!” And Galloway was, by all indications of recovered Iraqi state evidence, complicit in the U.N. oil-for-food theft.
Since the fall of the ancien régime in Iraq, Galloway has taken up new favored fawner status with Syria’s Baathist dictator Bashar al-Assad. On a 2005 trip to the country, Galloway gave an interview with the state-controlled Syrian Times in which he said that was in “one hundred percent agreement with Syria’s policies on the international level.” This was just after the Damascus-orchestrated assassination of Lebanese reformist Rafik Hariri. Galloway again used this venue to refer to the beheaders and roadside bombers in Iraq as a “resistance,” while naming Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Aznar the “biggest terrorists.”
Not that this did the most damage to Galloway’s reputation. It took a stint on the reality series Celebrity Big Brother in 2006 to alienate even some of his diehard loyalists. Before being ejected from the house by his co-residents, Galloway dressed in a leotard and imitated a cat drinking milk out of a saucer provided by a transvestite.
The Real Deal: French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner
Kouchner has been called a “postmodern politician.” As the founder of Doctors Without Borders, Kouchner is probably the cleanest example of the mature soixante-huitard, or “68er,” who has avoided the typical transformation into a calcified right-wing fogey. The young Communist who told Che Guevara to hold elections in Cuba has relied on science and the methodical rigors of the laboratory to advance his global mission of humanitarianism.
Kouchner famously challenged the Red Cross’s pathetic neutrality clause with respect to international conflict and came right out and said that the Nigerian government was attempting to exterminate the Ibo tribe in Biafra in 1968. He led brave and dangerous missions to rescue the Boat People of Vietnam and the Kurds of Iraq in the 70s. Speaking before the Carnegie Council a few years ago, Kouchner defined his no-bullshit policy of droit d’ingérence as follows: First he would ask, "‘Mr. Dictator, will you allow us to care for your patients?’ If they said ‘Yes, okay,’ we’d come. If they refused, we’d say, ‘Sorry, but we’re coming anyway’—and would cross the border. It was physically difficult, and some of our people died. Others have been imprisoned for years.” This is all of a piece with Kouchner’s greatest accomplishments in the realm of international law: getting the U.N. to pass one resolution that green-lights interventions in countries that have befallen natural disasters; and getting it to pass another that allows “humanitarian corridors” to be established for victims of unnatural disasters, like genocides.
The Middle East: The Simp and the Sage
The Poseur: British-Pakistani Intellectual Tariq Ali
Ali is a celebrity post-colonial theorist, a bagman for the Occidentalist conception of history. Big bad empire is to blame for it all. Yet despite being an avowed disciple of Trotsky, Ali sets out to prove that Marxism has never found a more willing helpmeet of women-enslaving theocracy and fundamentalism.
Ali’s work is never done until he’s stuffed as many leftist platitudes and clichés as possible into a single sentence. In his New Left Review essay “Mid-Point in the Middle East?” he extolled Muqtada al-Sadr, Hassan Nasrallah, Ismail Haniyah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as glorious upstarts in the “unfolding drama” of the modern Middle East and writes: “A radical wind is blowing from the alleys and shacks of the latter-day wretched of the earth, surrounded by the fabulous wealth of petroleum.” It’s like an Onion parody of the Socialist Workers’ Party meeting minutes, which might not be far cry from Ali’s rather matey intent: he loves to work in schlocky pop cultural references in his pamphleteering, titling, for instance, his pro-chavismo book Pirates of the Caribbean.
Marx was a genius when it came to handling contradiction and paradox. Ali’s specialty is the literal-minded howler: “I think that the Cuban Revolution has made incredibly important gains—and you can see these when you go, despite the hardships.” What hardships might those be? “If only there was a U.S. media as opposed to its president as its Venezuelan equivalent is to Chavez, U.S. democracy would be greatly enhanced.” If only the U.S. president pulled the plug on Air America…. “Hundreds of thousands of [Iraqi] children are no longer receiving an education” – as opposed to the Saddamist one they were receiving before, in which the first Gulf War never even took place. In Clash of Fundamentalisms, the seminal work of moral equivalence between Bush and Bin Laden, Ali writes, “[T]here exists no exact, incontrovertible evidence about who ordered the hits on New York and Washington or when the plan was first mooted,” just a few paragraphs above emitting the certainty that on 9/11 the “subjects of the Empire had struck back.” May the Force be with you, Tariq.
The Real Deal: Deputy Iraqi Prime Minister Barham Salih
In 2003, when Barham Salih was still the prime minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, he delivered a speech in Rome before the Council of the Socialist International, to which his party, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), is a member in good standing. Salih called for unequivocal support from his comrades for the then-inevitable liberation of Iraq, saying they had a duty as socialists to oppose “dictatorship and racism.” About halfway through his oration he struck a rather Hegelian note about the cunning of history and the relationship between justice and materialism: “It would be a good irony if at long last oil becomes a cause of our liberation. If this is the case, then so be it. The oil will be a blessing and not the curse that it has been for so long.”
The Kurds of Iraq have been for over a decade the architects and stewards of a model parliamentary government, comprised of women, atheists, socialists and even Islamists, that enjoys the constitutional right to break away and form its own sovereign nation. What ties Kurdistan and Salih to the rest of the Iraq, beyond a solemn desire to see it survive post-Saddam misery and chaos, is indeed oil. Salih chairs a committee in Iraq’s National Assembly on oil and energy policies and is a leading proponent of the U.N.-backed International Compact with Iraq, a liberal five year plan for making the country a global economic power, strengthening its fiscal, political and physical security, and guiding the delicate project of national reconciliation. For these and other importance tasks undertaken by Kurds like Salih, Tariq Ali has called them the “Gurkhas of American empire.”
Such insults are often aimed at the healthy counterparts of demagoguery. An old axiom of the Trotskyist Left Opposition held that in times of historical crisis it was allowable – necessary, in fact – for leftists to make alliances with conservatives against reactionaries, but it was forbidden for leftists to make alliances with reactionaries against conservatives. Chavez, Galloway and Ali claim to stand for “people’s democracy,” but have yet to meet an authoritarian ideal they couldn’t excuse. Thankfully, there are still those on the left around to tell them “Not in our names.”







POST A COMMENT
GH’s quote from Trotsky above shows that the old
revolutionary got it just about 100 percent wrong. The UK’s victory in the war with Argentina in
1982 led to the downfall of the military junta and its replacement by a democratic
regime. Had Galtieri won there is little doubt he would have been regarded as a
national hero, and the junta’s hold on the country would have been
consolidated.
Real Marxists such as myself are not unused to Marxism being twisted and perverted to support genocidal capitalist ideologies, however we are genuinely perplexed by, although not surprised by, and almost always highly amused by the daunting number of Trotskyist-cum-neo-conservative parasites who in an aerobic feat of cognitive dissonance have reconciled the superficial and completely ornamental vestiges of their once quasi-revolutionary ideology with the naked support of neo-liberal capitalism they now indulge in as a desperate act of post-”Leftist” ennui and hobbyism. (However, it’s of no loss to Trotsky, the counter-revolutionary white supremacist who gleefully suppressed the heroic insurrection of real communists in Kronstadt.)
While you are 100 percent correct in characterizing Chavez, Galloway, and Tariq Ali as being nothing more than fascists, (ie: right-wing populists) patriarchal totalitarian socialists collaborating with Christian, Islamic, and Hindu fascists in a desperate attempt at preserving and defending mercantile capitalism against neo-colonialism and neo-liberalism, all under the guise of “anti-globalization”. But third positionism and social fascism are nothing new, and neither is the massive migration of petit-bourgeois armchair “socialists” united under the banner of Trotsky, from red-drenched monopoly state capitalism to naked capitalism, the disappointment of losing the bid to terrorize the Russian proletariat to Stalin being far too much for them to handle. You just take it to an unprecedentedly absurd extreme.
I really don’t see how you have any right to complain about “hand-me-down Marxist kitsch”, as you desperately try to drape your unabashed love of capitalist plunder and genocide in it. Das Kapital is “pro-globalization”? I’m assuming like the vast majority of self-described “Marxists” you’ve never actually read Das Kapital. If you have, could you please point me in the direction of the part that would lend itself to glorification of Kurdish fascism, the mass-extermination of Haitians and Iraqis by u.s. and u.n. soldiers, or national oppression of Palestinians by Iraeli settlers. In fact, it’s inexplicable that anyone could conclude that Das Kapital supports any form of capitalist parasitism, regardless of it’s stripe.
With the Chavez-Morales camp claiming that there’s something remotely “Marxist”, “socialist”, or “communist” about support for the bloc that has emerged out of the alliance of neo-colonial “communist” China, Putin’s autocracy, Islamist right-populism, Latin American neo-Peronists, and you Trot clowns claiming there’s something remotely “Marxist”, “socialist”, or “communist” about support for the u.s./u.k/e.u./Israel bloc and it’s random flunkies (I honestly think Kouchner, Lula, and Salih would be genuinely mortified if they found out someone was trying to characterize them as Marxists, but if all it takes for any capitalist dupe to become a “socialist” is to unenthusiastically participate in the do-nothing PR spectacle politics of bogus social reform and “humanitarian aid”, what capitalist politican isn’t a “socialist”?) it seems that the only thing that isn’t communist these days is actual communism, that is, the revolutionary struggle for autonomy from all forms of capitalism, be it reactionary, conservative, liberal, Social-Democratic, or “socialist”. Real communists believe in the daily struggle against the monopolization of the planet by people like you. In short, follow your leader
PS: It’s in incredibly in poor taste the way you assholes manipulate the struggle for Kurdish national liberation as if your neo-liberal heroes give any more of a fuck about the self-determination of the Kurdish people now than you did when you were gunning them down in Turkey in the 90s. In short, follow your leader.
You may be interested in reading this:
Forgetting Orwell’s Lessons for the Left: Useful Idiots and Fellow Travelers in the 21st Century
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2007/08/13/forgetting-orwell%E2%80%99s-lessons-for-the-left-useful-idiots-and-fellow-travelers-in-the-21st-century/
Salutes to you all
I’m Greek and I would like to lay down some thoughts. Excuse me in advance for my bad english.
I’d like to say that you all critisize socialism, by overlooking the war capitalism has done to it, since it’s birth. You refer to the “fall” of socialism, as if there were nobody combatting it. Socialism is a great system, in theory, but it couldn’t withstand the blows of the older and thus, more experienced, capitalism. Don’t forget that when the going gets tough, it all comes down to war in one way or another. And capitalism thrives in war, while socialism is much more fragile. The end of WW2 saw USSR losing 20 million people, in the prime of their existence, and its workforce was shriveled. On the other hand, the WW2 made the US the first power in the world due to its manipulation of matters that come with war, i.e. low pays, social fear, arms trade etc.
I believe that countries such as Cuba and Venezuela are examples of U.S. political, economical and military harrassment. Yet you critisize them as if they were free to make any choices they wanted. As if they weren’t living under the incessant threat of the U.S.
I think that even though most of you seem intelligent in the way you write, you have not completely rejected some parts of the U.S. propaganda that you have been fed against socialism all these years.
Excuse me again if I was expressing myself aggressively, but I assure you it’s because my english isn’t as good as yours. I would very much like to hear some thoughts. Thank you. Konstantinos
Is ‘poseur’ now an accepted term of political analysis? In most of these comparisons, a somewhat (or extremely) absurd Left figure is compared to a someone who may have once been Socialist but isn’t any more. Kouchner has had an impressive and commendable career, but we’ve yet to see how his governmental participation will turn out. I don’t find it credible that Sarko’s cabinet is going to bring France closer to achieving Socialism.
i'm inclined to agree with anonymous at least partially: the previous venezuelan regime was incredibly, hopelessly corrupt with zero credibility beyond the (whiter) elites it supported. Chavez was and is a folk hero, and at least some of his land-reform and consensus-democratic reforms have greatly increased the people's empowerment.
That being said, he has at times shown authoritarian tendencies– shutting the opposition TV down was a big alarm bell– and his ignorant foreign policy friendships with Iran etc. sure do make him look like a buffoon or even an anti-semite. Only because there actually was a failed US-sponsored coup attempt against him, do I sympathize with his desire to tweak America at every opportunity in his foreign policy dealings. Keep in mind, though, through it all, Chavez' Venezuela has remained America's biggest or close to biggest supplier of oil, without any extortion on price.
Now I’m definitely getting an iPhone!
To: Elders of Zion
BCC: Jews
Subject: We have a breach
Someone by the name "Paul Denver" has uncovered the secret conspiracy to enslave the gentiles while simultaneously endowing Jews with plausible victimhood. As someone who stands in the way of the Judaism-by-proxy world government (which will launch alongside the iPhone), he must be neutralized.
This article is plain code for sophisticated anti-Goyism.
Chavez is a nationalist and therefore (rightly) anti-Jewish New World Order, anti-US Foreign policy that is put together by hate-filled anti-nation state Talmudic Jews who are then going to destroy the US when they are done with it.
Look’s let be clear and rational about this. Yes Jews have suffered throughout history, but antisemitism is not going away, because there isn’t a bigoted-inward looking irrational antisemitism. It is a response to Jewish activity. Sometimes that gets out of control with myths but actually there is a real basis for it.
Do you not understand, the Goy do not and will not live under a global government with this Judaism-by-proxy political system called Communism just so the Jews feel ‘safe’.
If Jewish self-identity is solely about ethnocentric victimhood and Jewish denial of their own terrible crimes against humanity then the reality is the Jewish-self identity is the problem here.
The best thing for Jews is to just stop being Jews, just stop trying to destroy nations, stop trying to move the world to a global government, stop attacking the religious symbols of other nations and stop trying to enslave the goy.
regards
Oh goodness. Chavez is a proto-fascist and the PUK are democrats? Compare and contrast the labour laws in V and Iraq. Look at what’s been happening to the oil workers in Basra over the last fortnight. Ask yourself why the Baathist Labor Code of 1987 is still on the books. Have a look at the ILO’s complaints about the 2004 decree that freezes the assets of Iraqi unions. Consider the repeated arrests of Kurdish members of the Worker Communist Party of Iraq by peshmerga loyal to the PUK and the KDP. Consider why the women’s refuges set up by the party and the Organisation for Women’s Freedom in Iraq have repeatedly been attacked. Look at Venezuela, where both the old, declining CTV federation representing the labor aristcoracy and the new National Organsiation of Workers (UNT) exist independently of the state. There is nothing on the books in V that compared with the Labor Code that iraq’s government has carried over from Saddam. As for Venezuela’s revolution being top-down: how about the occupied factories movement, the land occupations movement, and the urban land committees? Socialism from below in action. Do you know why the enabling law was created in 2001, and what it was used for? Do you think that the revolutionary Land Law it ushered in has benefited or hurt ordinary Venezuelans? Do you think Lula has been more progressive than Chavez by siding with the latifundia against the landless peasans’ movement, rather than facilitating the break-up of blocks of idle land? If the Enabling Law was a step to dictatorship, why did it expire on time in 2002? Would the UK or US have been as tolerant of Chavez’s government of a TV station that facilitated a coup that abolished democracy and the constitution for 48 hours, and continued to call for the murder of the President even after the failure of the coup? Of course there are important criticisms of the Bolivarian revolution that can be made, and Chavez’s praise for Iran should be criticised (as indeed it has been, by the UNT) but let’s have some analysis rather than this shrill silliness. Trotsky would be embarrassed by this level of discussion. A good resource on Veenzuela is the clearing house at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com
anything with real power to change the world–any movement, regime, or revolution that starts out with the 'divine spark'– has real potential to become a 'klippa', a dogma, repressive or worse. By the same logic. When you unleash the forces implicit in questioning the basics of society, you don't know that what replaces it will be better, and because so much is in flux, it can easily become far far worse.
a great article, michael. What do you think of Michael Ledeen ("The First Duce: D'annunzio and the free republic of Fiume")?
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!