M-L-M Mayhem!

Since I haven't had the time to post anything substantial for a while, and since the fall my general business has made my posting rather sparse, I figure I'll expend a post promoting some of the non-fiction books I'm currently reading.  Like many people I have the tendency to read several books at once, moving back and forth between them (and sometimes in the same hour), so as to not get bored by one narrative.  If a book (fiction or non-fiction) becomes more engrossing than others than the others will temporarily be set aside, but usually I'm cycling between multiple books––some of which connect to what I'm researching/writing.  So aside from rereading Capital , as mentioned in the previous post, here are some of the non-fiction books I've been reading at the same time. 1) Governing by Debt (Maurizio Lazzarato) I expected to dislike this book, due to my problems with its predecessor ( The Making of the Indebted Man ), and am only reading it because, des

Some of my colleagues underline and annotate books with pencil; I suspect this habit might have to do with the fact that, when returning to a text after years of intellectual development, they will have the option of erasing embarrassing marginalia made by their younger selves. Unfortunately, I have always preferred to use pens instead of pencils––not for any political reason, mind you, but simply because for some reason I own more pens than pencils and because I don't like the way that pencil smudges and fades.  Hence, whenever I return a particular book years after my initial reading I am met with more permanent traces of my previous self that can only be effaced by deliberate scribbling, a clear sign of guilt. Recently I have started re-reading Capital ––between other books I'm reading for the first time––in the interest of consolidating aspects of my ideology and practice.  I first read volume one during my MA, volume three by the end of my first year as a PhD student, an

In case folks haven't heard, AK Press, one of the long-standing leftist indie publishers in North America, has just suffered a major fire to its warehouse.  This means that much of its stock will be damaged and, since it relies on moving this stock to function, also means it needs support. Although it seems as if AK is known primarily for publishing anarchist material, it also publishes and/or distributes a lot of marxist/marxish books.  For example, it publishes Harry Cleaver's excellent Reading Capital Politically ; it also distributes my book.  Aside from this, however, I happen to be a marxist who believes there is a lot of value in many anarchist texts for a variety of reasons.  I treasure what I have learned from past AK titles, even if my politics has changed since they found a beloved spot on my bookshelves.  Moreover, many will probably be aware, it is difficult for an independent anti-capitalist press to sustain itself in these days of corporate publishing syndicate

Now that my unit has egregiously ratified a shite contract and left us in a position, come next Monday, of either crossing the picket lines of our own union or getting fired, I feel it's time to reflect yet again on the phenomenon of "paper marxists."  By this I mean those marxist academics whose entire career is built on papers and books about marxist theory but who, in practice, are often the most rank opportunists.  And since it is ultimately practice that matters for marxism, and not just a fucking career built out of published papers and books, paper marxists are about as marxist as carob is chocolate.  Except that I like carob and I don't like these pseudo-marxists. Okay, maybe it's not entirely accurate to use the term "pseudo-marxist" here.  After all, I don't want to be accused of engaging in the "no true scotsman" fallacy (but screw all these random fallacies that are supposedly laws of proper thought!), so let me rephrase: thes

I never tire of quoting Marx's statement about historical events repeating first as tragedy and then as farce, particularly since it often applies to all of the ways in which we are haunted by history and, in this haunting, end up repeating the mistakes of the past.  Now that my union local is back on strike, that statement seems entirely appropriate: if my union's strike in 2008-2009 was the tragic repetition of its previous strike in 2001-2002, then the repetitions called forth by this year's strike have already been enough to place it on the road towards farce. My analysis of the 2008-2009 strike can be found here , here , here , and here .  Much of what was outlined there, particularly the limits of trade union consciousness and a university local, as well as the way line struggle in even these spaces emerges, still holds for the current strike.  There are, of course, differences this time around that make the event of 2008-2009, with all of its limits, far more radi

I Shortly after Syriza's victory, leftists in Canada, the US, and other imperialist states became obsessed with a particular article about Yanis Varoufakis , this party's finance minister, regarding his claim about being an "erratic marxist."  The message was clear: here was a party in power that was unashamed to speak of marxism and so, because of this lack of shame, it must be marxist. For the mainstream left at the centres of imperialism Syriza represents a possibility, a way to make revolution through the ballot box, that confirms the revisionist thesis: communism is possible through reform, through the peaceful co-existence with capitalism, and a mass movement can be mobilized through free elections.  According to this argument only one factor is missing in these countries that are not Greece: an electoral party capable of representing the left––as Syriza supposedly does––and thus the solution is to build this party. And yet the manic sharing of the

[Yeah, still haven't written anything about Syriza.  Partisan had a small article about it , which would probably be a summary echo of whatever longer thing I would say, but the truth is I'm stuck between some gap of caring and not-caring, particularly since I know what I will say and the readers of my blog shouldn't be surprised by what I say, but that I probably would say it in way that has at least enough nuance to piss off a bunch of people on all sides of the debate and guarantee flaming.  Also, I enjoyed reading the response to Curtis Cole's terrible article about PPW that has recently been posted on the PCR-RCP website .  But instead of writing about either of those issues, I've got this rambling post instead…] As an ethos pacifism is compelling because it banks on the moralistic assumption that in any given war both sides are equally wrong.  Hence those committed to a pacifist politics are ethically superior to those embroiled in these wars because they ex