Identity politics

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Wed May 27 09:52:09 PDT 1998



> > POMO is anti-political as a theory, not because it is
> > abstract (cf. Rakesh) but because it is junk.
>
> Um, I beg to differ. Postmodernism, as America's leading Marxist, the
> literary critic Fredric Jameson put it, is the cultural logic of
> multinational capitalism. It's not completely "junk" any more than our

Fine, but what are the political implications of this logic? Where is that in POMO, in theory and in practice?

Incidentally, in a past life I read and liked Jameson. At the time I didn't know from POMO, I just thought FJ was a model for Marxist literary criticism, which I once aspired to write, before I decided to do politics instead.


> . . .
> Postmodernism and identity or micro-politics are the culture and politics
> of multinational capitalism. There are conservatives and revolutionaries
> within this general category, of course; Clinton and the neoliberals are
> clearly in the former camp. If you want Rightwing blueprints, read any IMF
> report praising the efficiency of capital markets to the skies

Why do I need POMO to understand said IMF report, rather than URPE and EPI stuff?


> If you want Leftwing blueprints, look at the German Green Party's action
> program, the first coherent wish list of the 21st century global
> proletariat.

Now we're getting to the core, so to speak, though we have to go to Germany to be there. First of all, a wish list is not a political strategy. We're awash in wish lists. By scenario, I mean a notion of how a POMO-based political movement would develop. An example of such a scenario is Luxemburg's The Mass Strike. Don't tell me she's POMO too. Second, I don't know that any Greens need POMO to do their wish list either, green content aside. What gives POMO the right to claim the greens?

I don't mean to be US-centric. If we were talking about Europe a somewhat different set of questions would apply. The U.S. does have its own unique political and cultural landscape in some respect, so for purposes of illustration, why does any US left need POMO?


>
> No, not every politics is multinational; the Second and Third Worlds still
> have lively nationalisms and proto-nationalisms. But the general tendency
> in the metropoles is towards the multi and away from the national.

There are some interesting glimmerings of what you're talking about in the dockworkers' struggles and the Nike/apparel fights, and somewhat more in the budding European Union, but this is far from a 'general tendency.' And how does POMO come in?

MBS



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list