Need for optimism ( Rob Schaap on Foucault)

Michael McIntyre mmcintyr at wppost.depaul.edu
Fri Jun 22 08:48:21 PDT 2001


Pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will are a damned hard formula to put into practice. But hell, the hunchback was managed to keep it up while rotting in a fascist jail, so who am I to kvetch?

I like the quote from Kafka. The trick is not to let it turn us into the sort of Fabians form whom socialism that we don't expect to see in our lifetimes turns into socialism-is-fine-as-long-as-we-don't-get-perceptibly-closer-to-it-in-my-lifetime.

So how do we align (necessarily long-range) optimism of the intellect with optimism of the will? It all comes back to capitalism producing its own gravediggers, doesn't it? To wit, (1) Capitalism without exploitation is a contradiction in terms. (Even if you want to think of it simply as the difference between labor's average product and its marginal product/wage). (2) Rosa was right - primitive accumulation never goes away (at least it hasn't yet). (3) And, more speculatively, I'd endorse the notion that alienated labor is deeply offensive to human nature ("species being" for you purists).

Close your eyes and think of England. How long between the emergence of agricultural wage labor and the full institutionalization of wage labor with the Poor Laws? Three hundred years? Bad political conjunctures (like the one we have now) go away. Structural conditions don't.

Michael McIntyre


>>> jkschw at hotmail.com 06/22/01 09:59 AM >>>
This is an important question. I agree with Charles that without some sort of optimism of the will we have no chance. The question is, what sort? I read the historical record differently than Charles does. I also don't thinbk we can take what would have been Marx's attitudes towards the situation in his day as guide to the appropriate attitude in ours. In his day, t seemed that working people were on the move. The initial attempts at organization in which he participated or that he observed--1848, the 1st Internat'l, 1871 (excuse the typo, Charles)--failed or were crushed. But it looked like forward movement overall. Moreover, within a few years of his death, Marxist parties became the dominant form of workers' organization in Western Europe; labor militancy in the US and the UK was high, capitalism itself looked unstable after a series of terrible depressions.

Today, workers in the richer nations are very far from showing any interest whatsoever in radical change, or even organizing for social democratic reforms; Marxism as a practical organizing principle is dead, the "successful" revolutions Charles mentions have come a cropper, except in a few embattled outposts (unless you think that China is still socialist, and it's not exactly an inspiration to anyone anyway), and capitalism has survived crises that one would have thought would have wrecked it, notably the Great Depression. This is not a particularly cheerful situation.

Of course, all is not dark. There is resistance. Antiglobalization movements are encouraging. Single issue movements are linking up somewhat. We do not face Brecht's nightmare of injustice only, and no rebellion. But it is unfocused, dispersed, "postmodern" rebellion, micropolitical. I do not say we are trapped in the Iron Cage with no outlet ever. But is there an outlet for us? Aren't we in Kafka's situation, "There is an infinite amount of hope--but not for us."

--jks



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list