MS Word version

Hi Robin,

I know you share my desire to bring people together who have something to contribute to revolutionary change, despite their disagreements. I’ve had communications with several of these in the past few days, so I wonder what concoction we could make out of their ‘good bits’.

Firstly, there was my post to Arminius on Patrick Colm Hogan’s identity politics:

I’m very interested in radical variations from traditional socialist/communist politics, and I came across one new to me when doing some research for my MA course. Patrick Colm Hogan wrote an essay called ‘ Midnight’s Children: Kashmir and the Politics of Identity’ (Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Winter, 2001), 510-544), in which he writes of ‘the local, practical identity with its living traditions [which] was displaced [in India] by national modernity.’ Hogan contrasts `practical identity’ where people identify themselves with a group with which they interact in their daily lives and work, with ‘categorical identity’ which is identification with a named group like ‘a Moslem’ or ‘an Indian’, categories which de-limit in- and out-groups and so are divisive and dangerous, despite (or maybe due to) being unreal in that typically most of the members of a group never meet, do not know each other in any useful way, merely share a named identity (and certain beliefs and practices). Trades unions, workers’ clubs and associations, and labour/left political parties could be seen as forms of `practical identity’ recognised by the traditional left, but they can also be instances of `categorical identity’ when they are large, scattered and limited in their function. Social ecology and other theory and practice interested in relocalisation and establishing self-reliant local communities need or assume a `practical identity’ politics, a politics on a different axis from left-right. I’ve ordered one of Hogan’s books which goes into this further, but I wonder if anyone out there has already met these ideas, or something similar.

to which Arminius said:

… the whole thing sounds a bit like an academic trying to justify his years in some Graduate School of Education by verbal mystification of otherwise fairly common sense and comprehensible concepts …

Secondly, Paul, a fellow student on the MA in literature course I’m doing, asked on a course conference:

This might sound like a daft question, but is there an Anarchist lit theory? I ask as it seems to be the only major ‘Ism’ without one. I have to confess to having a soft spot for the likes of Kropotkin and Bakunin. One of them, Bakunin I think, once rolled up at a Russian village to find it mid-riot. He immediately threw himself into it on the side of the peasants – he had no idea what they were rioting about but, hey, it was a riot. I’d love to know what that kind of intellect would make of ‘the canon’.

to which I replied:

Not sure about ‘an Anarchist lit theory’, but at least one such theorist maybe. While doing the project, I came across a paper on Midnight’s Children and ‘Identity politics’ by Patrick Colm Hogan … [who] is inclined towards anarchism, I’d say. He is ‘Professor, Department of English, Program in Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, and Program in Cognitive Science, University of Connecticut’ & his impressive cv is at http://english.uconn.edu/editor_files/directory/cv_files/hogan.pdf

to which Paul replied:

Thanks for the info and the link. I have found some stuff on anarchists and literary theory. Basically, they don’t like it because it’s part of the academic establishment and because, in their eyes, they think it’s dominated by Marxists with whom they are ideologically at war (I’m not making this up, I swear!). I have found some analysis from an anarchist perspective, using the theories of Proudhon and Kropotkin though, as of yet, I haven’t found anything analysing Marxist Crit – what would an anarchist make of Eagleton’s Intro to Lit Theory, for example?

to which I said:

I’d be interested to know what ‘stuff on anarchists and literary theory’ you found. I think anarchists would agree with Eagleton that ‘the great majority of literary theories outlined in [his] book have strengthened rather than challenged the assumptions of the power system’ (Lit theory: Intro., p.170) Don’t you think that lit theory (so-called) Marxists are interested in Marx’s critique of capitalism but not in revolution or ‘praxis’? (Benita Parry says so.) Now that active Marxists are (apart from a tiny minority) anti-statists, not Stalinists, & have moved away from the idea of central planning towards re-localization of economies, they are pretty close to Bookchin’s social ecology / anarchism (see http://www.des4rev.org.uk/bookchinfreedom.htm )

to which Henry, the MA conference moderator and tutor, said:

Marxists—on the whole—seem to feel that one has to first work out the theory and then (and only then) act on it. I remember sitting through many evenings as a student long ago while “policy positions” were worked out and I vividly remember a graffito on the wall of the University of Cologne during the student unrest in 1968: “Ohne Theorie darf kein Praxis sein!” [“Without a guiding theory one can’t do anything!”] There seems to be a feeling amongst remaining Marxists (quite possibly including Terry Eagleton) that if the theory is worked out well enough, all else will follow with the inevitability of the proletarian overthrow of the power structure.

Since then I’ve acquired two important books: Spivak’s A Critique of Postcolonial Reason and Eagleton’s After Theory, both of which seem to be defending and reclaiming Marxist criticism. At the end of the day, Marxist theory and praxis has to be the way to go.

Thirdly, I received Dave Parks of Exeter Socialists piece about a new workers party: http://www.exetersocialists.org.uk/whatparty.htm

about which I said on the WiC discussion forum:

I am perhaps more inclined towards ideas than towards praxis so can live with contradictory stuff I encounter, in particular in my case from ‘permies’ and ‘socialists’, and I do think that the way forward could come from somehow combining what they offer, hence my web site about designing for revolution. I feel comfortable – generally – with wic partly because the anarchist element seems to allow freedom of ideas, yet, paradoxically, still be revolutionary and not reformist. I got involved with a local socialist groups: Exeter Socialists, that came out of the Socialist Alliance (sadly SWP dominated, now gone off to Respect), because it was left & local, but that seems to have died. The most active comrade, who tries to keep it going, is still keen on promoting a new workers party, but I don’t see the revolution happening by the traditional proletarian MCOH route. What are your – and others – views on this?

To which Robin said

It was interesting to see the following excerpt from a post by Paul Bennett on the WSM forum:

As I understand it, the position of Byron (and of the SLP?) does not relate directly to there not being enough to go round, but advocates labour-time vouchers for different reasons, namely that that’s the only way to ensure that people work together, pull their weight and cooperate in an appropriate way. I reject this argument, for the following reasons.

(1) It seems to assume that workers will have sufficient consciousness to get rid of bosses and governments and nations but not sufficient to cooperate to make Socialist society work;

this idea of strange limits to Socialist consciousness is just weird.

(2) It ignores changes that are likely to take place under capitalism as the Socialist movement grows, namely an increase in workers combining and producing outside the cash nexus; this will provide plenty of experience of working together.

(3) In the last analysis it is just a variant of the ‘lazy man’ argument produced by opponents of Socialism, which has been refuted so many times over the years.

I particularly agree with Paul’s point number 2 which is heartening to see. Perhaps this goes some way to answering your question

top