-------------- http://www.zmag.org/suicidenlr.htm
The Suicide of New Left Review by Boris Kagarlitsky
For forty years, New Left Review was a symbol for the radical intelligentsia throughout the world. The articles carried in it were more successful or less so, and the points of view presented in it were astonishing for their superficial radicalism or for their toothless moderation. Nevertheless, for all leftists who read English, the journal remained a source of information on contemporary Marxism. New names appeared on its pages, and discussions of fundamental importance revolved around views expressed there. Although NLR was published in Britain, and most of its authors were based there or in the US, it was not only open to writers from other countries, but in its essence, approach, structure and ideology, constituted an international publication. Now, this journal is no more. There is another journal which bears the same name, but this latter periodical is fundamentally different, based on a diametrically opposite concept.
>From January 2000, New Left Review changed its editor, design, and
numbering. Before us we have number one, a little exercise-book formated in
post-modernist style. The sub-head "Second Series" seems to presume that the
journal will survive for another forty years, and that there will perhaps be
a third and fourth series. The change of concept is declared in a foreword
by Perry Anderson, under the expressive heading "Renewals". Perry Anderson,
who succeeds Robin Blackburn as editor, is not someone new to NLR. He was
present at the very birth of the journal. The makeup of the editorial board
is also practically unchanged. We are not talking about an infusion of fresh
blood; quite the reverse. Before us we have the same old collective, who
have decided to change their program and ideology. It is no accident that
the word "new" has come into fashion along with the rise of politicians such
as Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder. In the 1960s the "new left" had a very
clear system of principles that distinguished it from the "old left",
embodied in social democracy and communism. Meanwhile, this political
definition served to make clear that the new and old left had something in
common.
At the turn of the twenty-first century, the situation has changed. The idea of the new is used as a substitute for all other ideas, as a symbolic replacement for any positive identification and as an incantation freeing those who utter it from responsibility before the past and future (and at times, from their consciences as well). Anything whatever is justified on the basis of its novelty. To be new, however, does not mean to be better. Moreover, and much more important, "new" does not signify "final". The new becomes the old, and the old, once it has been thoroughly forgotten, becomes the new. References to a "new" program and "new" ideas are featured precisely when people lack the intellectual and political courage to declare openly just what this program and these ideas consist of (or when both program and ideas are lacking). It is quite clear that Perry Anderson is not a supporter of Tony Blair, as he prudently forewarns us in his preface. In Anderson's view, Blairism differs little from neo-liberalism. Precisely for this reason, the victory of Blair, Schroeder and similar "new social democrats" is proof of the complete and final triumph of neo-liberalism on a global scale.
_________________________________________________________________ Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/