I also thought her criticism of "maximizing difference" anarchy and localism to be spot on. But the discussion about the proletariat was very muddy, and I think most of the muddiness had to do with how ignorant most academicians are about non-academic labor.
Joanna
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ferenc Molnar" <ferenc_molnar at hotmail.com>
Dean, using a lot of Zizek's ideas and even hand gestures, argues that anarchism with its focus on the individual against the collective, the Democratic Party, and liberalism has rendered the left unworkable. She argues for a return to a communist party structure that embraces discipline. This would be done with a critical eye focused on both the successes and failures of 20th century communism. Old ideas would be used for new situations. "The Sovereignty of the People" rather than "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
In the audience, someone asks what the uprisings in Egypt mean in this context, having occurred more or less without a vanguardist leadership or a party structure. The discussion then turns into a search for the proletariat. What is the proletariat? Can one be a member of the proletariat if one is a digital user of facebook who contributes free labor to a social media corporation? Is the proletariat even represented in the room among the well-spoken, shabby genteel Brooklyn audience, one person asks? The gap between the intelligentsia and the working class has grown so wide in this country. I believe that there's a sincere longing in that room to reach over that gap to embrace one's brothers and sisters but is the vehicle of a communist party that can't even locate the proletariat the way to begin? ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk