• Après la #canicule : quelle #révolution ?
    https://frustrationmagazine.fr/canicule-revolution-2

    La troisième #vague #caniculaire est en train de faire de nouvelles #victimes. On meurt chez soi, on meurt dans les transports, on meurt au travail et on meurt dans des hôpitaux en surchauffe. Dans les prisons, c’est un enfer, avec 50 degrés dans les cellules et l’indifférence complète. Du côté de la faune et de la flore, c’est l’hécatombe. Dans les élevages industriels, des millions d’animaux crèvent dans d’atroces souffrances, dans l’indifférence générale. Nous sommes en train de vivre l’une des plus grandes catastrophes naturelles de notre histoire récente mais, sur les plateaux TV et à l’Assemblée nationale, c’est business as usual : il ne faudrait pas freiner la marche du capitalisme estival. En dehors de ces cercles climatisés, on s’interroge : qui est responsable de ce qui nous arrive ? Est-ce nous-mêmes, avec notre appétit “consumériste” et technologique ? Ou bien les usagers des #yachts, des résidences secondaires, les mêmes qui influencent nos lois et notre économie ? Et que faire ? Signer une énième pétition pour espérer d’autres effets que ceux enregistrés par le mouvement climat au cours de la dernière décennie ? Ou monter en radicalité ? Mais pour aller vers quoi ? Le retour à la bougie ? Le repli local ? Et pourquoi pas le communisme, mais lequel ?

  • #Lucy_Parsons, #syndicaliste #révolutionnaire, noire, « plus dangereuse qu’un millier d’émeutiers »
    https://contre-attaque.net/2025/02/08/lucy-parsons-syndicaliste-revolutionnaire-noire-plus-dangereuse-quun

    (...)

    Syndicaliste révolutionnaire, elle pense que « le changement à venir ne pourra se produire que par une révolution, car les classes possédantes ne laisseront pas la société se transformer de façon pacifique ». Lucy Parsons militera jusqu’à sa mort en 1942, à près de 90 ans, elle qui jusqu’au bout prêchait la violence contre les capitalistes : « Que chaque sale et mauvais vagabond s’arme d’un révolver ou d’un couteau, guette sur les marches des palais des riches et poignarde ou fusille les propriétaires à leur sortie. Tuons-les sans pitié et que ce soit une guerre d’extermination ».

    Cette femme a tellement fait trembler le gouvernement américain que le FBI s’est précipité pour confisquer tous ses écrits à son domicile à sa mort, afin qu’ils ne puissent être rendus publics. À ce jour, ils ne le sont toujours pas. Luigi Mangione aurait-il lu Lucy Parsons ? En tout cas, nous vous conseillons de faire connaître l’histoire de cette militante extraordinaire.

    Via #David_Snug :

    https://davidsnugblog.wordpress.com/2026/07/22/lucy-parsons

  • [Livre] Révolution et Contre-Révolution dans la Région Espagnole des Années Trente
    https://ricochets.cc/Livre-Revolution-et-Contre-Revolution-dans-la-Region-Espagnole-des-Annees-

    « Juillet 1936, dans les casernes catalanes... » #Les_Articles

    / #Livres,_revues, Révoltes, insurrections, débordements..., Révolution , Démocratie directe, communes libres..., Autoritarisme, régime policier, démocrature..., #Guerres, #Luttes_sociales, #International, #Antifascisme

    #Révoltes,_insurrections,_débordements... #Révolution_ #Démocratie_directe,_communes_libres... #Autoritarisme,_régime_policier,_démocrature...
    http://www.autistici.org/tridnivalka/wp-content/uploads/Espagne-1936-FRA-FINAL-IMG.pdf

  • 14 juillet
    https://ecologiesocialeetcommunalisme.org/2026/07/14/14-juillet

    Une émeute qui dégénérerait en sédition est devenue moralement impossible. La surveillance de la police, les régiments casernés et tout prêts à marcher, la Maison du roi, les villes de guerre dont Paris est environné, sans compter un nombre immense d’hommes attachés aux intérêts de la cour, tout semble propre à réprimer à jamais l’apparence […] L’article 14 juillet est apparu en premier sur Atelier d’Écologie Sociale et Communalisme.

    #Évènements #Prise_de_la_Bastille #Révolution #Révolution_française

  • Der Mann, der herausfand, wer B. Traven war
    https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001434/http://www.mdr.de/mdr-figaro/hoerspiel/essay/recknagel100.html

    B. Travens Roman „Das Totenschiff“ war seit Erscheinen 1926 ein Erfolgsroman - und doch blieb verborgen, wer denn dieser B. Traven eigentlich sei. Erst Rolf Recknagel fand eine schlüssige, fundierte Hypothese.

    Essay von Wolfgang Knape | MDR FIGARO | Sa, 22.03.2014 | 19:05 Uhr : Der Mann, der herausfand, wer B. Traven war

    Porträt des Literaturwissenschaftlers Rolf Recknagel

    B. Travens Roman „Das Totenschiff“ war bei seinem Erscheinen 1926 ein Erfolgsroman - und doch wusste niemand, wer denn dieser B. Traven sei. Jahrzehntelang schossen die Spekulationen ins Kraut. Der Literaturwissenschaftler Rolf Recknage fand eine schlüssige, fundierte Hypothese.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001434im_/http://www.mdr.de/mdr-figaro/hoerspiel/diskurs/traven102_v-teaserTop_zc-11a84362.jpg?version=47762
    Bis heute immer wieder aufgelegt: Bücher von B.Traven

    Die Frage, wer denn dieser B. Traven sei, hat Literaturwissenschaftler, Leser und Journalisten seit den 1920er-Jahren immer wieder umgetrieben. Bis zu seinem Tod am 26. März 1969 hat der in aller Welt bekannte deutschsprachige Erfolgsautor und Verfasser sozialkritischer Abenteuerromane immer wieder versucht, seine wahre Identität geheim zu halten. Zwei Tage nach seinem Tod allerdings gab seine Witwe Rosa Elena Luján de Torsvan bekannt, dass B. Traven alias Traven Torsvan alias Hal Croves mit dem deutschen Schauspieler, Publizisten, Schriftsteller Ret Marut identisch war.

    Die „Ret-Marut-These“ auf dem Prüfstand

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001434im_/http://www.mdr.de/mdr-figaro/hoerspiel/feature/traven104_v-standard43_zc-698fff06.jpg?version=1214Büchergilde Gutenberg von 1926. Schon Erich Mühsam hatte in den 20er Jahren gemutmaßt, B.Traven sei der Anarchist Ret Marut.

    Dass Traven und Marut eine Person waren, hatte der 1918 im thüringischen Steinbach-Hallenberg geborene Rolf Recknagel schon Jahre zuvor in detektivischer Kleinarbeit und durch Textanalysen herausgefunden. Seine 1966 bei Reclam Leipzig publizierten „Beiträge zur Biographie“ waren bei ihrem Erscheinen eine Sensation. Unter Eingeweihten gilt Rolf Recknagel bis heute als der „Nestor der Travenologie“. Und wer hierzulande B. Traven kennt, denkt seinen Namen automatisch mit. Seit 1954 lehrte der spätere Traven-Forscher als Dozent für ausländische Literatur der Gegenwart an der Fachschule für Bibliothekare „Erich Weinert“ in Leipzig und als Gastdozent an der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig.

    „Recknagel, der ja fern der großen Universität forschte, war der Partei irgendwie suspekt mit seinen Arbeiten über Traven, Jack London, Oskar Maria Graf. Das waren zwar alles Linke, aber welche, die nicht in die SED-Linie passten. Mit seinem international anerkannten Erfolg zur wahren Herkunft Travens musste Recknagel auch ohne SEDParteibuch akzeptiert werden.“ Der Leipziger Schriftsteller Wolfgang U. Schütte über Rolf Recknagel
    Leipziger Volkszeitung vom 3.6.2005

    1978 erlitt er einen schweren Verkehrsunfall, der Raum für mancherlei Spekulationen ließ. 2006 starb Dr. Rolf Recknagel in Leipzig.
    In seiner Sendung geht der Autor dieser besonderen Persönlichkeit nach. Er lässt Angehörige und langjährige Kollegen zu Wort kommen und schlägt in den Werken nach, die uns Recknagel, dem wir auch Biographien über Oskar Maria Graf und Jack London verdanken, hinterlassen hat.
    Über den Autor Wolfgang Knape

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140509001434im_/http://www.mdr.de/mdr-figaro/hoerspiel/stadtmauer102_v-standard34_zc-c96b11b4.jpg?version=47881
    Wolfgang Knape 2009 vor der Stadtmauer von Tangermünde.

    Geboren wurde Wolfgang Knape in Stolberg (Harz). Er studierte in Leipzig Bibliothekswesen und absolvierte das Literaturinstitut „Johannes R. Becher“. Später war er als Mitarbeiter an der Deutschen Bücherei tätig. Nach einem zweijährigen Studienaufenthalt in Bulgarien ist er seit 1981 freier Autor und lebt heute in Leipzig. Seine Spezialstrecke: unterhaltsame Reiseliteratur, historische Biographien und heiter-satirische Geschichten.

    Für seine Bücher und Features gräbt er mit großem Vergnügen in Archiven und Bibliotheken. Am liebsten aber schaut er dem Volk aufs Maul. Bei seinen Arbeiten fürs Buch wie fürs Radio haben es Wolfgang Knape besonders die kuriosen Typen und sympathischen Sonderlinge angetan. Ergebnis sind u. a. solche Porträt-Features wie „Felix Graf von Luckner - Pirat, Abenteurer und Gentleman“ (1999), „Der Prophet vom Arendsee - Der Wanderprediger, Naturheilkundige und Sonderling Gustaf Nagel“ (2002), „Ich komme und gehe wieder - Das wundersame Leben des Joachim Ringelnatz“ (2002), „Komiker aus Versehen - Das Leben des Schauspielers Theo Lingen (2003)“ oder „Der Erbauer der Göltzschtalbrücke - Johann Andreas Schubert“ (2008).

    Zuletzt aktualisiert: 24. März 2014, 18:51 Uhr

    #anarchisme #belles_lettres #biograohie #anonymat #Allemagne #Mexique #révolution #existentialisme #histoire

  • Gefallenendenkmäler
    http://www.denkmalprojekt.org/2024/kreuzberg_frdh-a-d-bergmannstr_1864_wk1_wk2_ber.html

    Dienstgrad: Premier-Lieutenant
    Name: Heinrich LOMMATZSCH
    Geburtsdatum : 29.5.1837
    Todesdatum & Ort: 8.4.1864, Düppel
    Bemerkungen: D2 Dem Andenken von… gefallen bei der Erstürmung der Düppeler Stellung als einer der Ersten auf Schanze V. Gewidmet von den Kameraden des Ingenieur-Corps

    Kreuzberg (Friedhöfe an der Bergmannstraße), Berlin

    PLZ 10961

    Zwischen dem Südstern und dem Marheinekeplatz in Berlin-Kreuzberg grenzen vier Friedhöfe aneinander. Sie werden auch als vier Friedhöfe an der Bergmannstraße bezeichnet. Die ursprünglich durch Mauern getrennten Friedhöfe sind heute durch Mauerdurchbrüche untereinander verbunden. Der Dreifaltigkeitsfriedhof II hat die Adresse Bergmannstraße 39-41, der Friedrichwerderscher Friedhof II Bergmannstraße 42-44.
    Auf Grund ihrer ineinander verschachtelten Lage, Größe und der Anzahl von privaten Einzelgedenken, Gräbern und Kriegsgräbern, werden in dieser Dokumentation der Dreifaltigkeitsfriedhof II und der Friedrichswerdersche Friedhof II zusammengefasst.
    Mindestens dreißig Soldaten des Ersten Weltkrieges und 362 Soldaten und Zivilisten, die während des Zweiten Weltkrieges ihr Leben verloren, fanden auf den beiden Friedhöfen ihre letzte Ruhestätte.
    Weitere Aufschriften an privaten Grabstellen erinnern an Kriegsopfer beider Weltkriege.

    Verlustliste: 18. u. 19. März 1848 in Berlin
    http://www.denkmalprojekt.org/2010/vl_18_u_19_maerz_1848_berlin.htm

    Die Niederschlagung der Revolution von 1848 in Berlin war eine blutige Angelegenheit. Die Verluste auf Seiten des prußischen Adels vermitteln einen EIndruck von der Intensität des Widerstands des Volks.

    #Kreuzberg #Friedhof #Bergmannstraße #Preußen #Deutsch-Dänischer_Krieg #Krieg #1848 #Revolution

  • The Battle for History : Why Trump wants to Erase the Past
    https://red-spark.org/2026/03/13/the-battle-for-history-why-trump-wants-to-erase-the-past

    Pourquoi la politique réactionnaire du trumpisme mènera à son échec.

    13.3.2026 by Brian Becker - This lecture is the first of an eight-part seminar series hosted by The People’s Forum NYC, Hidden Histories of Rebellion in the United States.
    ...

    We saw in Minneapolis on January 23rd, the first general strike in a city in the United States since 1934. One hundred thousand people [came out] and the high temperature that day was 9 below zero. This was a real testament to the fact that, in spite of a very difficult climate, people were ready to mobilise and did mobilise – just an immense outpouring of people.

    All the teachers went on strike, the schools were closed down. The Somali small businesses shut down. All of the unions came together. That’s very rare in the United States. It’s not rare in France. It’s not rare in Spain. It’s not rare in Colombia. It’s very rare in the United States, and it’s an indication that we are at a moment, a watershed moment, in fact, for the direction of the country – and people are coming together to organise.

    Whenever people are active politically, when they’re involved directly, the thirst, the hunger for political education becomes very, very evident. Because when you’re just going about your business, your everyday life, you may be troubled about this or that, but when you’re in struggle, when you’re in motion, when you’re at the battlefield, so to speak, when you’re contesting with the police or with hostile media, or an administration that demonises you and describes you as domestic terrorists, and then engages in all kinds of violence – and you fight back, [you] don’t retreat, you’re not intimidated, you stay strong – all of the issues that you wouldn’t [normally] be considering, you start to, they become first, front and centre in your brain. That’s how people’s ideas change.
    How Change Happens

    And this course is about how people change and how change happens, how social change happens in the United States. Right now, there’s an effort by the Trump administration and the MAGA movement and Project 2025 to create a very vast change in society. They are very serious about what their plans are: the firing of hundreds of thousands of federal workers in the first days of the Trump administration; decimation of the environmental protection agency; decimation of the National Park Service, elimination of any remnant from the civil rights movement; [elimination of] the telling of history, full scale assault against trans people, trans kids, the LGBTQ community and immigrants who are being targeted and demonised.

    This isn’t just random, weird, chaos created by a right-wing project. They have a plan. Project 2025 is the plan, and they intend to carry out a very significant change in the United States. And as a consequence of their very robust effort to carry out this change, they are meeting with the resistance of masses of people, and those people are determined to defeat MAGA. They’re determined to defeat Project 2025.

    They’re now determined to defeat ICE, and we believe, firmly, that MAGA will fail, that ICE will be defeated, that the Trump agenda will be defeated, that this effort to, “Make America Great Again”, which means to take America back before the civil rights movement, before what we call the Civil Rights Revolution transformed America and really, in a way, carried out a cultural revolution, not just an economic or social, but also a cultural revolution in the United States… The effort by ICE and MAGA, and DOGE, and all of these other acronyms associated with the Trump White House, we believe this will fail.

    In fact, we feel so confident that it will fail. That is a point of departure between our movement, which is a socialist movement, a Marxist movement, and many liberals who see what we see, who are anguished by what they see, rightfully, who are upset and outraged by the Trump administration’s program, but they basically, have been engaged in a lot of handwringing.

    Like, “Everything is gone!”, “The country’s lost”, “What are we going to do?”, “Maybe we should move!”. It’s just this whole defeatist notion that because Trump is on a rampage that he will win. We think [that] not only misses the point, but actually undermines the capacity of the people to fight. If you feel you’ve already lost, people generally tend to seek individual salvation. Retreat, save yourself.

    But if you feel it’s an unfought battle, in fact, if you feel that it’s a battle that can be won, and that everything you believe in is at stake, instead of running, instead of seeking individual salvation, you stand with other people and you fight. Truthfully, bravery is a social phenomenon. Bravery is not simply an individual act of courage by some especially courageous person. If I’m brave, you’re brave. If you’re brave, I’m brave. If we’re brave together, this feeling of struggle, this feeling of determination, this feeling that we can fight and win, this feeling that we refuse to surrender to racism or sexism or patriarchy, or all of the bigotry and discrimination and hatred. If we feel that way and act that way, we can win.

    And if we don’t, we can lose.

    So what we think and how we interpret the events is not something academic. It’s something that, I would say, is a life and death issue for our movement.
    Events in Minneapolis

    I’d like to bring up some photos of 3 individuals who have been murdered by ICE. First, it’s Keith Porter, killed at the end of the year in Los Angeles. Followed by Renee Goode, whose final words to the ICE agent who shot her three times in the face, were: “Dude, I’m not mad at you”. And then he shot her three times in the face.

    Finally, of course, Alex Pretti. You see this slow motion shot, where he’s on his stomach, and the ICE agent takes his gun out. They shoot him in the back, and nine more shots are fired.

    He’s executed. This wasn’t, like, a chaotic moment. Same with Renee Goode. A chaotic moment where in the fog of war, people make quick decisions.

    No! This was cold blooded executions, intentionally carried out by ICE agents. In the case of Alex Pretti, they did that because they were upset about the general strike that happened the day before. They came out that morning, and they were gonna show people who’s boss. He wasn’t threatening anybody. He was filming them.

    They came over to him, and the two women who were his friends. They pushed one of the women over. He steps in front and says, “Hey, don’t do that” and then they come at him, they swarm him. He has a registered gun, which is his right. They take the gun away, then they shoot him 10 times in the back. That was to send a message.

    Frankly, if there had been no general strike the day before, if there had not been this mass mobilisation of the working class and young people in the Somali community, the very day before, the killing of Alex Pretti would have been [just] one more killing by an ICE agent. But instead, it sparked a nationwide opposition that’s all over the media, each and every one of you have been watching it, either on social media or mainstream media.
    Trump Retreats

    Then two days later, Donald Trump says, “Well, I’m reconsidering, I’m gonna bring Bovino”, the Gestapo-like, guy leading ICE in Minneapolis, “I’m going to bring him out”, “We’re gonna take some of the agents out”, “we have to reconsider what exactly happened”. It is like this superficial effort to sort of de-escalate. You know, to lower the temperature.

    The reason Trump did that is the country is at a boiling point over what ICE is doing. I think everybody in this room knows it’s at a boiling point. People are seething with anger. Seething with anger. And if you think about the country as a boiling pot with a lid, there’s only three options: You lower the temperature, you take the lid off, or you let it explode. The country is a boiling pot right now because of the Trump administration’s aggressions on many fronts, ICE being one of them.

    So Trump right now is trying to lower the temperature. And the Somali students, in particular, know exactly what Trump is doing, and they are asking all of us not to lower the temperature, but to turn the temperature up. They’re asking that the effort that they carried out in Minneapolis, to shut down Minneapolis, that we replicate that – not just in one city, but all over the United States, ICE out, nationwide shutdown, this Friday, January 30th.

    We’re not looking to lower the temperature. We’re looking to get ICE out. We’re not trying to even get ICE out of Minneapolis. We want to abolish ICE. We want to abolish the entire instrument of repression.

    There’s going to be an issue that’ll come up probably on Friday of whether or not ICE will be funded again. The Democrats funded it the last time around. There’s a lot of pressure right now growing in the country. If you say, I’m gonna call my congressperson and tell them, vote, no, that won’t mean that much. The only thing that will really stop this ICE war against the people is if the ruling class in America fears that the opposition to what ICE is doing will lead not only to resistance and rebellion, but possibly revolution.

    That’s how the Civil Rights movement actually made the gains it did. It was the threat of revolution. It was the insurrection that was taking place in cities and towns, big and small, all over the United States, starting in 1955 and going up until 1972.

    That’s when even Richard Nixon, the ultimate racist, who adopted the Republican Southern Strategy, he was the one who said, “let’s have affirmative action”. He was the one who created far reaching economic reforms, concessions to the civil rights movement.

    It wasn’t a liberal Democrat, it was this racist, anti-communist Republican, Richard Nixon, because Nixon knew – as did the other ruling class politicians – that if they didn’t make serious concessions at that moment, the United States was going to erupt into civil war, and the government would be the target of a righteous indignation by the people, led by the Black community, but joined by Latino, Asian Americans, Native Americans, White people.

    I mean, that’s what was actually happening in 1969 and ’70. Which brings me to the question that I started with:

    How does change happen? That’s really the theme of our 8 part class. Our basic question (and I’m going to come back to why) is why will MAGA fail? Why will Trump fail? [The answer tells us] why we shouldn’t be involved in hand ringing, [why] we should be engaged in a fierce struggle to stop them – and if we do, we can win.
    Lessons from the Civil Rights Movement

    All right, let’s think about the civil rights movement and what it achieved. We call it a Civil Rights Revolution. It was still a capitalist system after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the next year, the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It wasn’t a revolution in the sense that it was a socialist revolution. But I just want to describe a little bit how things were at that time and how things changed.

    In 1964, America was an apartheid state, a literal apartheid state. We’re talking about in my lifetime. We’re not talking about ancient history. I know I’m old, but I’m not that old. But I’m old enough that it was an apartheid state when I was a child. A literal apartheid state.

    In Rochester, New York, where I grew up, Eastman Kodak was the company that ran the city. There were 250,000 people who lived in Rochester. 55,000 employees worked at Kodak. My father was one of them. He was a research chemist.

    And of the 55,000 workers at Kodak, there were almost no black workers. I think there were about 70, out of 55,000, because Kodak was that racist. In 1964, in Rochester – 6 months before the rebellion in Harlem took place in that same year – there was an uprising in the Black community in Rochester.

    Here’s the headlines, “Negro mob riots here”, “Homer declares state of emergency”, “The police came out, the youth fought back”. It went on for almost a week. It was the precursor to all the other rebellions: Harlem in 1964, the Watts Insurrection in 1965, Newark in 1967, Detroit in 1967, all over the country in fact.

    Of course, when Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, that night, 120 cities went into insurrection, including Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital. And when I say insurrection, it was a state of complete rebellion. The U.S. Military was sent to 120 cities, probably more, that night.

    During this time, when the rebellion happened in Rochester, this is somewhat of a personal anecdote, I guess, an organisation called Fight, F-I-G-H-T. Fight. I can’t remember what all the acronym stands for. I know the G is for God, and fight is for F is for fight. Right?

    (laughter)

    Anyway, you get the picture. FIGHT demanded that there would be 600 jobs set aside out of these 55,000 for unemployed black people in Rochester, New York, to which Eastman Kodak said, “No way, we will never allow you to tell us who we’re gonna hire and who we’re not going to hire. We won’t do it”. That initiated a protracted struggle in Rochester, New York, over whether Kodak would grant these 600 jobs. I mean, that’s not a big ask. That’s a pretty small ask. But they said no. It dragged out and became (you can research it at home), it became a nationwide symbol of the fight against capitalist corporate America and its racist discrimination policies.
    Apartheid USA

    The apartheid character of America wasn’t simply governmental laws, and it wasn’t simply in the South. Rochester is 30 miles as the crow flies from Toronto, Canada. It’s pretty north. The deep north you could call it … and they said “No”, and it became an epic battle.

    My parents were involved in this because my parents were involved in the civil rights movement, so my father, as a chemist at Kodak, actually said, “I support the demand for 600 jobs.”. [That] basically ended his career.

    We lived in this little suburb of Rochester called Irondequoit, which was one mile from the city and my parents had five kids. They decided they needed a bigger house. These suburbs opened up, and they were all white. Literally all white. As a matter of fact, they were sundown towns. They didn’t call them sundown towns, but they were sundown towns, meaning if you were black or a person of colour, and you were there after sundown, you were gonna get hurt, or you were gonna get killed. This was another form of apartheid in America.

    So this little area, Irondequoit, New York, where we lived, was a sundown town, even though we didn’t know that word at the time. But there were no black people who lived there or were permitted. Nobody, no banker would give a black family a mortgage there. Again, this is not Alabama. It’s not Mississippi, it’s Rochester, New York.

    When my father took a stand and supported the demand for the 600 jobs, he was completely -as was my mother -completely demonised by all of our neighbours. The entire neighbourhood stood with Kodak. Even though these were working-class white people, they were standing with Eastman Kodak and insisting that only Kodak should be allowed to make hiring decisions. If Kodak wanted to have an all-white workforce, that was their decision. That’s how it was in 1965 and 1964.

    If you go back further, before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, for instance, in Mississippi and in South Carolina, if you go back even to the year 1900, the African American population in Mississippi and in South Carolina was the majority. It wasn’t a black minority. It was a majority in Mississippi and in South Carolina. How many black voters voted in 1900 in Mississippi and South Carolina? That would be none. Or less than 0.5 percent because the apartheid system’s laws were enforced through terror, the terror of the police department and the terror of the KKK, and they weren’t distinctive organisations. The cops and the Klan weren’t just working hand in hand, as the chant went. They were the same – the same people. So were the judges. So were the bosses and so was the Chamber of Commerce.

    America was so profoundly racist that in 1954, when the Brown vs. Board of Education Decision was taken. That was a decision by the Warren Court, making apartheid, separate, segregated schools no longer legal. It said there was no such thing as “separate but equal schools”, which is where Jim Crow was established in 1896. The Supreme Court in 1954 ruled that it’s not possible to be separate and equal, because the black schools were underfunded, to put it mildly. All of the resources in society were flowing to the white schools, and they said it’s against the law.

    So what happened in response to the Brown v. Board of Education? There was the beginning of the academy movement, and the academy movement was vast number of white people in southern states taking kids out of public schools, even before the first black student was able to come into the public white school, and they created private academies. This is like the charter school movement. Where it really started was that the government then took public monies and gave it to private academies, who would use religious criteria and other false, BS metrics, to basically make sure they were all white.

    The academy movement spread everywhere throughout the South. So even though the law of the country changed, meaning you now had to have desegregation, it was the same.

    It was essentially the same. And that was a mass movement.
    National Liberation Revolutions

    Why did the Supreme Court finally, after two centuries, well, not quite 200 years, why did it finally decide to say apartheid was illegal in public schools? Because America had a problem. The problem was, after World War Two, China had a communist revolution.

    North Korea had a revolution. Vietnam had a revolution. Indonesia was having a revolution.

    India was having a revolution. The colonialised people of Asia, Africa, the Middle East were rising up in anti-colonial movements, and they were led by communist parties.

    Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Kim Il Sung in North Korea, Mao Tse-tung in China. The US said, “Well, we’re fighting for freedom against these communists”. And the communists would say, “You have apartheid.”, “Where’s that freedom?”, “How can you have apartheid?”, “In the case of Mississippi, [you oppress] the majority of the population, and talk about democracy and freedom?”.

    All the people in the so-called Third World, the Global South, when they heard, wait, the United States has apartheid against black people, and the Soviet Union, and China, and North Korea, and Vietnam are championing the causes of national liberation – it became a gravitational pull towards the communist movement.

    The Warren Court decision in 1954 was the first effort by the American ruling class to overcome this major obstacle in the Cold War, which gave all of the advantage to the communists. They said, we have to start to reform and get rid of apartheid because it doesn’t conform to the new reality of a world that is becoming anti-colonial.

    It was the international situation that actually motivated sectors of the U.S. Ruling class to make this reform. But other sectors of the ruling class thought this was terrible.

    They weren’t thinking about how to compete with the communists in China, or Vietnam, or someplace else. They were [thinking] we want to control the Mississippi. We want to control Alabama. If you start to let the majority – meaning the black population – vote, we are gonna lose control. So we don’t care about China. We care about Mississippi.

    You had a struggle between different sectors in the U.S. Capitalist ruling class. As a Marxist, it’s very important to understand that a class in society, whether it’s the working class, the proletarian, the petty bourgeoisie, the capitalists, whatever class you’re talking about – classes are not monoliths. It’s not like there’s one grand ruling class that all meets together and they have one thought pattern.

    They’re not the ruling class because they all think the same thoughts. They’re the ruling class because they own the banks and corporations. But within that class, they can have different strategic views, different philosophies, etc. So, one section of the ruling class was trying to reform American capitalism away from this extreme racism, and other sectors of the ruling class were promoting what amounted to a mass white racist movement in America.

    If you’re younger, if you think about the civil rights movement – ’50s and ’60s – you think Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Black Panther Party, Kwame Ture, Rosa Parks. That’s what we think about. But having been alive at that time and also politically active for the latter part of the 60s, the dominant force was not the civil rights movement. It was the white racist movement. People don’t know that. People think of the 60s as being like this panacea of leftism. You think of Woodstock and anti-war, and then Dr. King’s 1963 March.

    There was a mass movement of white supremacy against the Civil Rights Revolution. And that movement, the white supremacist movement, was defeated.

    And I’ll say a little bit about why it was defeated, but it was defeated. The MAGA movement is the resurrection of that old, defeated white supremacist movement. When they say Make America Great Again, they need to go back to the era where white supremacists had ruled the roost without dispute.

    What they mean by that is not, just white working class people, if they’re reactionary. If they’re racist, they can be pawns in the game, but they’re not owning corporations.

    They don’t have investments in the Middle East. They’re wedded to racist capitalists.

    It’s a form of class collaboration.

    So there was a war going on in the ’50s and ’60s. [Today] the Make America Great Again movement, is really an effort to go back and undo all of the social, economic, and especially cultural achievements that came about as a consequence of the Civil Rights Revolution.

    Again, the fact that this kind of extreme racism greeted the beginning of civil rights reforms was not enough to stop it. Ultimately, because the movement succeeded on many fronts, (even though it’s still a capitalist system), because there were so many cultural, economic, and social changes in America, as a consequence of the Civil Rights Revolution, America has changed, and the right-wing sector of the bourgeoisie in America feels that they need to create a new form of governance to get rid of the social, economic, and cultural changes.

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act made segregation illegal, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act made it impossible for the Southern states to create any voting laws in those states without the agreement of the Justice Department on the federal level. That meant that all of the tricks and patterns of racist disenfranchisement in Southern states was no longer allowed.

    And there was a flourishing of black political representation in the South.
    How did the Civil Rights Movement Achieve Changes?

    I would say those two bills, the 1964 Voting Rights Act and the 65 Voting Rights Act, are by far the biggest, most important, most far-reaching pieces of legislation in American history. How did it happen?

    If you look at the U.S. Congress in 1964, that passed these two far-reaching bills. From a point of view of demographic composition, it’s exactly the same as Congress in 1954, when it upheld apartheid. There were very few black representatives. The Congress was dominated by the Dixiecrats – the Southern Bloc. It’s the same Congress.

    So how did this Congress that was so reactionary and racist in 1954 have the most far-reaching legislation in American history one decade later? Well, they didn’t change. People changed. The masses of people, by the millions, changed because they became political actors. The civil rights movement was the activation of tens of millions of “ordinary people” who became political.

    When we look at Minneapolis, what just happened on January 23rd, that was not 100,000 socialists. I mean, maybe in a year or two, they’ll be socialists. If all goes well – if they’re watching our classes.

    (laughter)

    But no, that’s not what motivated them. What motivated them was the brutality of ICE.

    The terrible right-wing assault by the Trump administration. And when people get involved in the struggle, like take Alex Pretti, who was assassinated. He’s an intensive care unit nurse at a VA hospital. He was leading his life. He was doing good deeds.

    He was obviously a conscientious and beloved medical professional, but he wasn’t going out Saturday mornings with his cell phone to, you know, film ICE agents or police agents.

    He was one of those 100s of 1000s of Americans around the country who have been brought into politics right now.

    And what brought them into politics? It wasn’t only Trump, and it wasn’t only Project 2025. It wasn’t only the assault on our basic Democratic rights in the United States. It was also what happened starting on October 8, 2023 – Palestine. How many millions of young people, in particular, many who are probably in this room, came to demonstrations not once, not twice, not once a year, not a conference once in a while, but all the time?

    They were witnessing a genocide in real time on their smartphones. [For] the first time, people who weren’t at the battlefront or at the scene of a genocide – we watched it.

    And we also knew that the government, that speaks in our name, was lying. The government that sends our tax dollars to fund the genocide was lying. [We know] that all of their arguments – like in the early days – remember when a hospital was blown up, and the Israelis said: “Well, that was a Hamas rocket that misfired and it landed on the hospital.” Then there was two weeks of debate in the New York Times, on MSNBC, in Fox News, like, “Who destroyed the hospital?”

    Well, a year later, all the hospitals were destroyed. There’s no question about why they’re destroyed. The Israelis destroyed them. Every university was destroyed because the Israelis blew them up. If people had just been at home watching, they might have been mortified, they might have been upset, they might have wanted to change the channel because it’s so disturbing.

    But if you’re in the streets, if you’re organising, if you’re with your fellow students or coworkers, or people in your community, or your family – and you’re in the streets, and you’re out there every day, when it’s cold, or when it’s raining, no matter what, you’re there with the Palestinians – and then you see how the lies are being presented by the capitalist media, you realise that the problem, the problem here isn’t a bad policy. The problem isn’t a mistaken policy. The problem isn’t a bad politician or a mistaken politician. The problem really is a system. And then you think, “Well, what is this system?”, “Does it have a name?”.

    If you ask school kids, what’s the name of the U.S. System? They might say democracy or republic. Nobody in the past would have said, oh, we live in the capitalist system, and all the problems that we’re facing or seen are the problems of capitalism. But when you’re in struggle, and this, this phenomenon, this process is taking place, and you’re looking for answers in your thinking and seeing for yourself, it’s not a mistaken foreign policy, a mistaken lead, or a bad party, as opposed to a good party. When you realise it’s a system, then you want to know what this system is.

    Who benefits from it? Who profits from it? What’s it called? How did it evolve? How did it get here? And you also think, “Can we have a different system?”.

    I mean, the kings and queens of medieval Europe told the serfs, “This is how God wanted it”. “You’re a serf, and I’m a noble because this is God’s will.”. A lot of serfs believed that, because they were devout religious folks who went to church and the clergy – who was the 2nd estate, along with the nobility – told them” yeah, this is exactly what God wants.” “This is exactly… you do all the work, we pray, and all the money goes to the church and to the king.”

    Then, finally, there’s a revolutionary process, and people realise, “Well, no, this is not what God wants. This is a system that benefits a ruling class, and we can have a new system.”

    And once you have a new system, you don’t normally want to go back to the old system.

    There’s not a yearning in Europe right now, in spite of how messed up Europe’s politics is, nobody’s thinking like, can’t we have an absolute monarch? There’s not some beck and call for a return to medievalism. In fact, if somebody said, “yeah, let’s have the farm workers be serfs.”, they would be, they would be destroyed. It would be completely impossible.

    MAGA wants to go back to the old system before the Civil Rights Revolution and say, “Let’s go back.” People don’t want to go back. Some people may want to go back. I mean, what is MAGA really, and what is Project 2025? It’s a coalition of two things. There’s two wings to this:

    The MAGA – Make America Great Again – is really a vessel, really just for Donald Trump.

    And Trump was this seemingly anomalous, weird, reactionary reality TV guy.

    Uh, very different from all other politicians, catering to sort of anti-immigrant, racist notions, especially in the white population and especially the rural white population. The electoral system is constructed that gives a great advantage to rural and small towns in America – even though 87 percent of the people in the country live in urban areas, which are generally not aligned politically and ideologically, and culturally with what MAGA stands for.

    So MAGA, in one sense, is a vessel for Trump, who became a popular politician with what part of the population? Maybe 30 percent? Not really more. It’s probably 30 percent.

    Project 2025 is something different. Project 2025’s author is Russell Vought.

    Russell Vought is a long-time, semi… I don’t know, when do you call somebody a fascist or a semi-fascist? I mean, it’s a judgment call. But Vought believes that the problem in America was the Civil Rights Revolution because the Civil Rights Revolution detonated other movements: the women’s rights movement, what was at that time called the gay liberation movement, the movement that allowed disabled people to have access to things, the environmental protection movement that inhibited what corporations could do, that regulated and told corporations, they couldn’t completely poison the air and water, the lakes and rivers and air, at their own discretion, that there had to be some government oversight. That came also from the Civil Rights Revolution.

    Russell Vought believes that the Democratic Party and the sector of the ruling class that’s aligned with the Democratic Party accommodated themselves to the Civil Rights Revolution changes because they are communists. He believes the Democratic Party leadership is communist. What does that make us, then? They actually believe it.

    When you read Russell Vought’s stuff, he [says] these people are communists, and the reason he knows they’re communists is that they supported civil rights. Now, they didn’t really support civil rights, but the Democratic Party acclimated itself to the demands of the civil rights movement when they became institutionalised.

    I have this quote [that Andrea Lucas], head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, just made an announcement that she’s urging all white male employees who feel that they have been the victims of racism and discrimination to come forward and file a claim with the EEOC.

    [That is] an agency designed for and created by the civil rights movement, to remedy past discrimination, like what I was showing you about Eastman Kodak, where black people could not get jobs. I also worked at Bausch and Lomb in Rochester, which makes eyeglass lenses.

    In 1965, there were 8,000 workers [and] zero African American workers. And now the EEOC head leader, Andrea Lucas, is saying, “White men, please come forward and file your claims because we know the real problem in society is that white men have been discriminated against.”.

    When you look at the history of the country, on all fronts, and come to the conclusion, it’s so obviously sort of an appeal to a section of the white population to mobilise them on the basis that whatever problem they are encountering, it’s a consequence of the Civil Rights Revolution.

    Russell Vought and the MAGA leadership, they want to take that part of the white population, galvanise them into a little reactionary, racist army, in order to reverse the social and economic and cultural changes that not only were good for society and good for people, but that inhibited capitalism. You know, those demands that you had to build an access ramp for disabled people, you couldn’t simply pollute the rivers at will, you couldn’t poison the air at will, the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Capitalists have to give workers basic job safety.

    When I worked at Bausch and Lomb, which was in the early 1970s, the temperature there was 125 degrees in the unit. We were using chemicals which were later banned under [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] OSHA. Every week, some worker would have some disgusting, terrible, chemical burn, third-degree burns. There [was] no safety regulations.

    That’s what Project 2025 wants to go back to – this unfettered rule by capitalism. But they couldn’t do it, they couldn’t get the job done unless they had a popular mass movement. So MAGA is the popular mass movement, because Trump was popular with a certain part of the population.

    All the work behind the scenes at the Federalist Society, or [American Legislative Exchange Council] ALEC, or these different agencies and institutions to rewrite the laws against the Civil Rights Revolution, and all the women’s movement, and the social justice movements, and the environmental movement. They were not succeeding, but with Trump, they had a man on horseback. They had what is needed for a right-wing counter-revolution: mass base. These policies are so unpopular that MAGA felt we can [only] do it with a mass base, but the mass base is only 30% of the country.

    So that’s the question, everybody. If they have 30 percent of the population, and 70 percent don’t agree with them – and yet, 70 percent don’t do anything, or the 70% are waiting for November 2026 for a midterm election so they can vote for some Democrats who will immediately compromise with Trump. If that’s the idea – if that’s the thought process – we lose, and MAGA wins.

    But we feel that MAGA won’t win because that’s not what’s going to happen, and we think Minneapolis is a testament to that. Minneapolis is where George Floyd was killed May 25th, 2020. That was the first Trump regime year. Trump tried to use the military against the masses of people in Minneapolis and around the country, including Washington, DC. By May 30th, all the Democratic governors and the mayors, including the mayor of Washington, were going along with the curfews and the suppression.

    Remember, [on June 1] Trump walked across Lafayette Park to have his picture taken with that Bible in front of St. John’s Church, and in order to get there, they had the police just pepper spray and hit all these people who are peaceful protesters with less than lethal munitions, which still cut up your body or destroy your eyes or whatever. He walked through, and he held his Bible there in front of St. John’s. That was the day he had a conference call with every governor saying, “You either crack down, or we’re sending the army.”.

    He wanted to send the army then, just the way he’s sending the military now. And what happened the next day? The next day, instead of the governors and the mayors being able to go along with him, tens of millions of people came into the streets all over the country. That’s what happens if we remember June 1st, June 2nd, June 3rd, 2020. That went on for six weeks, and it changed the whole narrative.

    Even the NFL and Major League Baseball were [saying] “Let’s take a knee.” Like, really? These billionaires, [were saying] “Yeah, let’s take a knee. Yeah, and the Confederate statue, that has to come down. We hate that. It’s been there for 100 years, and we loved it last year, but now we hate it. We really hate it, and it doesn’t stand for what we believe in.”

    The whole narrative shifted for a moment, but it was just a moment because everything then kind of got sidetracked into, “Well, who are you going to vote for – Biden or Trump?” So all of the energy from the street, which was so dynamic, it was 35 million people in the street. Everybody said, “Let’s really make a difference by electing Biden so we don’t have a second Trump administration.”

    All of the energy got funneled into the Democratic Party and into the election of Biden.

    And what did Biden do? He reversed all the COVID aid programs. You know, the COVID aid program, which came under Trump and then Biden: You got $300 a month per child, every family. That brought childhood poverty in America down 50 percent in one year. Biden ended the program.

    It shows that childhood poverty is a policy choice, right? They decided to spend the money on something else, not on that program. If you can eliminate childhood poverty by half, in one year, it shows it’s a completely remediable problem. So it’s a policy choice.

    So, our movement went with the Democrats because that’s the game. The game is: “You hate the Republicans enough, you hate [Trump] enough. We gotta get him out of there.”

    And who’s gonna take his place? Well, it’s gonna be a Democrat, because the system is rigged so that only one of the two ruling class parties has a chance of winning.

    I’m with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. [PSL Presidential candidate] Claudia de la Cruz and [Vice Presidential candidate] Karina Garcia ran a great campaign, promoted socialism, got a huge number of votes, but they’re excluded from the TV debates.

    They don’t have $3 billion for TV ads. In many of the places we got on the ballot, the Democrats then spent $100 million to get us off the ballot, and we were a minor party.

    But they spent an enormous amount of money in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio. The system is rigged.

    So if you really want change – which we all do – it’s understandable why people would want to vote Trump out and the Republicans out. Understandable. Got it. But that’s not where change comes from, because then what happens is that the Democrats, essentially, because they are a ruling class party, either compromise with the far right, or go even further in some way. In the case of war and peace, the Democrats, I would say, are even worse.

    If we think back to what I said a few minutes ago, where does change come from? It’s not the politicians – not changing the politicians. That Congress, in 1964, was the same Congress as 1954. Yet, the same Congress passed the most far-reaching legislation in American history, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, not because they changed. We changed – meaning we became political. We became active. Our communities became active.

    The people, once organised, become an irresistible force. There are two kinds of change that can take place: far-reaching economic reform or revolution.

    Now, there have been two revolutions in the United States, well, two and a half. The American Revolution was a political revolution. But at the end of that war, the slave owners were still the slave owners, the enslaved people were still the enslaved people. The social fabric of society was not altered. It was just that the ruling class colonists became independent from the British ruling class. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t unimportant, but that’s what it was.

    The U.S. Civil War was more of a real revolution because the system of enslavement – [where] enslaved people constituted the centre of the American proletariat – that system ended, and it hasn’t come back yet. I don’t mean it’s coming back.

    In fact, it kind of came back, five years later, ten years later, with the defeat of Reconstruction, the bloody counter-revolution in the South, when Northern capitalists betrayed the struggle for equality and freedom, by cooperating with – rather than fighting against – the old, defeated slaveocracy.

    And then this defeated slaveocracy told the story of the Civil War from their point of view.

    In New York City, right up until the 1930s, the Civil War was taught from the point of view of the Southern defeated slave owners. It was only the teachers’ union in New York that insisted that the war be taught to New York City public students from the vantage point of the North.

    That was because the teachers’ union was led by communists at that time. They insisted that the North teach the Northern version of the Civil War. So in a way, the South won the Civil War, even though the system of slavery, which had been the centrepiece of labour in the South, was formally and technically and legally ended (unless you’re incarcerated, in which case, the Constitution says, you are enslaved, you can be enslaved.).

    So how does change happen? It’s not gonna be by supporting the Democrats. It’s not gonna be by supporting the lesser evil. The problem really is the system. The ruling class has different factions and tendencies. If our movement says, “Look, one section of the ruling class is really bad. So we’re gonna follow and be tied to another section of the ruling class.”, then the idea of system change goes away.

    If you believe that the real problem is the system and that society could be reorganised, such, for instance, that a new Constitution would say, “Bill of Rights, number one: free healthcare for every person in the United States. Every person who lives here, not just citizens. Number two: free education up to and through secondary education. Absolutely free. Third: housing must be affordable, no one can take your home from you, and housing can never be, say, more than 6% of your income, or free. Four: that you are guaranteed employment at a good salary, or if you can’t work, that you’re entitled to a basic income that can never be taken from you.”

    These are the first four rights. The only rights that we have in our Bill of Rights are our inhibitions on what the government can’t do. It can’t inhibit our free speech. So homeless people have a right to speak, but they don’t have a right to a home, right? If you’ve gone bankrupt because you can’t pay your doctor’s bill, you have a right to speak about that, but you don’t have the right to go to a doctor for free.

    So instead of having a bill of rights that are simply inhibitions or prohibitions about what the government can’t do on the political level, a Socialist Bill of Rights would be what society guarantees to every person. I was in Cuba recently. Cuba is suffering. Cuba is really suffering because of the blockade. I mean, in the 60s and early 70s by Caribbean standards, Cuba was affluent. [its] healthcare system second to none. Life expectancy [is] still the same as the United States, in spite of the blockade. But they can’t buy anything. They can’t sell anything. [The country] can’t trade. They can’t do any of that. There’s blackouts every day; it’s terrible.

    Article 5 of the Cuban Constitution says the state has an obligation to provide free healthcare services to all of the people who are on the island of Cuba for their entire lifetime, from the time they’re born till the time they die. Here’s a country that’s so poor because of the blockade, and yet they make a legal guarantee to their people that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. If Cuba can do that under these circumstances, just think of what the United States can do.

    Zoran Mandani’s election was a stupendous blow against the MAGA narrative about how right-wing the country is going to be. His demands are positive and progressive, like free buses. That’s great. They should be free. So should subways. So should healthcare.

    So should the things that I just talked about.

    The way to do it is we have to build an independent people’s movement that has – I believe – socialist understanding, socialist values, socialist and perspective, perspective about how change happens, that people make change. When we change, because we become politically active and [are] struggling, then change happens – whether it’s far-reaching reforms like the civil rights movement or environmental protection, or even more profound change of revolution. It’s when we change, when the people change.

    And so that’s when we go out and demonstrate, when we leaflet, when we do all the things that we’re doing. We’re not trying to impress Donald Trump or Chuck Schumer. We’re trying to reach out to the people in the working class – the young people, especially. The people who are the agents have changed. Because if they become involved, as we’re involved, we can make the change that we want.

    Brian Becker is a founding member of the Central Committee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the National Director of ANSWER Coalition, and host of The Socialist Program.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.N.S.W.E.R.

    #USA #révolution #racisme #trumpisme #histoire #lutte_des_classes

  • Con “#Revolutionary_stories” i giovani imparano in un’ottica decoloniale

    I libri della Ong Oew raccontano ai più piccoli i protagonisti dell’opposizione al colonialismo. L’ultimo è dedicato a #Omar_Al-Mukhtar, leader della lotta libica contro l’occupazione italiana. Un passo per decostruire la narrativa dominante.

    Far conoscere a bambini e ragazzi storie e personaggi della resistenza al colonialismo europeo del Novecento. È questo l’obiettivo di “Revolutionary stories”, collana di libri illustrati dell’Organizzazione per un mondo solidale di Bressanone, cittadina in provincia di Bolzano.

    L’iniziativa editoriale della Ong altoatesina si inserisce all’interno di “Decolonising minds”, un progetto che affronta il tema del colonialismo da prospettive diverse, attraversate però da un filo conduttore comune: il coinvolgimento delle giovani generazioni.

    “Confrontarsi con questo tema è complicato perché ci si trova inevitabilmente a fare i conti con una parte della propria eredità storica e culturale -spiega Adrian Luncke, collaboratore dell’Oew e coordinatore dell’iniziativa-. Se la prima emozione evocata nello spettatore è il senso di colpa, un sentimento che su questa questione è presente in molti di noi del Nord globale, la reazione sarà con ogni probabilità una chiusura”.

    Per questo ciascun capitolo di “Decolonising minds” è stato declinato attraverso strumenti divulgativi differenti pensati per innescare innanzitutto una riflessione, come il reading performativo “Tsinstiya”, il podcast “Ascoltare le migrazioni” e il gioco di ruolo “Processo del tribunale popolare” in cui gli studenti di una scuola superiore di Bolzano hanno giudicato un caso semi-fittizio di un combattente sudtirolese in Abissinia, in Etiopia.

    In questo percorso si inserisce “Revolutionary stories”. Dopo aver raccontato Saad Zaghloul e Djamila Bouhired, figure centrali della resistenza egiziana e algerina, il terzo volume della serie, “Omar Al-Mukhtar. Quando la fede diventa resistenza al colonialismo”, volge lo sguardo alla Libia. Omar Al-Mukhtar è nato il 20 agosto 1858 a Zawiyat Zanzur, in Cirenaica (regione storico-geografica situata nella parte Nord orientale della Libia, ndr). A 12 anni ha intrapreso gli studi coranici a Giarabub, centro spirituale della confraternita sufi dei Senussi. È diventato imam ed è stato una figura molto rispettata come insegnante religioso, mediatore e guida della comunità, ricoprendo incarichi per l’ordine tra cui la gestione di un centro religioso.

    Con l’invasione italiana del 1911 Al-Mukhtar ha guidato per oltre vent’anni la resistenza libica, forte della sua conoscenza del territorio e dell’appoggio dei diversi gruppi familiari locali, sotto la guida politica e spirituale di Idris Al-Senussi, diventato re di Libia all’indipendenza. Nei primi anni il controllo italiano del Paese è rimasto fragile e limitato alle città, mentre nell’entroterra si era sviluppata una forte resistenza.

    A partire dagli anni Venti, con l’avvento del fascismo, però, la repressione si è fatta dura: sotto il regime di Benito Mussolini e con l’azione militare di Rodolfo Graziani sono state avviate campagne di “riconquista” caratterizzate da deportazioni di massa, campi di concentramento e violenze diffuse contro la popolazione civile. Al-Mukhtar è stato catturato l’11 settembre 1931 dopo uno scontro nella Valle del Grib. Sottoposto a un processo sommario a Bengasi, è stato impiccato. L’esecuzione è avvenuta nel piazzale del campo di concentramento di Soluch, in Cirenaica, davanti a circa 20mila cittadini libici costretti ad assistere. Ancora oggi è sepolto a Bengasi, davanti all’ex palazzo Littorio.

    “In Libia la figura di Al-Mukhtar è tra le più importanti a livello storico -spiega ad Altreconomia Radwa Ghashut, autrice del libro-. Il suo volto compare sulle banconote da 20 dinari, le sue gesta vengono ricostruite nei libri di scuola e il Giorno dei martiri -ricorrenza nella quale si ricordano le vittime del colonialismo italiano- cade proprio il 16 settembre, data della sua esecuzione”.

    Nata e cresciuta in Libia, Ghashut vive a Bolzano da 12 anni, dove lavora come mediatrice culturale e traduttrice. Nel volume la sua biografia si intreccia con quella di Al-Mukhtar, dando vita a due piani narrativi che scorrono paralleli: “Per sviluppare il racconto mi sono immersa nel passato, ripercorrendo i miei ‘incontri’ con l’eroe libico e ricostruendo, attraverso le mie parole e le illustrazioni di Lucia Zamolo, le scene che compongono la narrazione”.

    Dalle prime lezioni di storia tra i banchi di scuola ai racconti familiari emergono così le tappe principali della resistenza libica, legate ai ricordi personali dell’autrice. Particolarmente significative sono le storie condivise dalla nonna Ftema e le conversazioni con il padre -grande appassionato di storia e per anni guida turistica-, che ripercorre per la piccola Radwa la cattura di Al-Mukhtar dopo un’imboscata delle forze italiane.

    A questi elementi si aggiungono i frammenti di un immaginario collettivo alimentato soprattutto dal cinema. In Libia, infatti, il film “Il leone del deserto” del regista Moustapha Akkad, uscito nel 1981 e dedicato alla figura del combattente libico interpretato da Anthony Quinn, viene tradizionalmente trasmesso ogni anno in occasione del Giorno dei martiri. E dunque ritroviamo Radwa adolescente in salotto mentre in tv scorrono le immagini della pellicola, censurata in Italia fino al 2009 perché ritenuta “lesiva dell’onore dell’esercito italiano” per il modo critico in cui rappresentava l’occupazione in Libia.

    Nella fase di ricerca Ghashut ha potuto consultare diverse fonti in lingua araba, oltre a documenti ufficiali del tempo. Tra questi spicca il verbale del processo sommario a cui fu sottoposto Al-Mukhtar, raccolto nei “Quaderni di Cirene” del collettivo bolognese Resistenze in Cirenaica. Proprio il ricorso a fonti eterogenee e spesso marginalizzate rispetto alla storiografia dominante diventa parte integrante del progetto, che non si limita a una mera ricostruzione degli eventi ma invita lettori e lettrici a interrogarsi sulle modalità attraverso cui la storia viene raccontata.

    “Il progetto intende mostrare che il modo in cui apprendiamo la storia è guidato dalla nostra prospettiva particolare -conclude l’autrice-. Il nostro libro in questo senso è un invito ai giovani a provare ad allargare almeno un po’ lo sguardo per approfondire poi il tema con l’insegnante a scuola o, perché no, a casa con i propri genitori”.

    Uno sguardo, quello delle “Revolutionary stories”, che permette a ciascun libro della collana di diventare così uno strumento educativo in senso lato e, soprattutto, un primo passo per decolonizzare la conoscenza.

    https://altreconomia.it/con-revolutionary-stories-i-giovani-imparano-in-unottica-decoloniale
    #décolonial #Italie_coloniale #Italie #livre #résistance #récit #contre-récit #occupation #colonialisme #Saad_Zaghloul #Djamila_Bouhired #Libye #Idris_Al-Senussi #fascisme #Rodolfo_Graziani #histoire #Soluch #camp_de_concentration #Radwa_Ghashut

    –-
    ajouté à la métaliste sur le #colonialisme_italien:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/871953

  • Rigny et l’enquêteur sérendipienHistoire d’une anarchive populaire (1/2)
    https://abasbruit.org/2026/06/20/rigny-et-lenqueteur-serendipienhistoire-dune-anarchive-populaire-i

    Voici l’aventure de la découverte des écrits de Jean-Baptiste Rigny, artisan et « homme gris », obstiné, né deux ans avant la #révolution française. Un de ces hommes obscurs dont le destin est une fuite de son encagement social. Là où peut-être nait toujours l’insolence du politique. Et dont les traces se perdent (et se retrouvent comme on le verra) dans les États-Unis où le conduira sa migration. Mais peut-être que la politique est aussi toujours une émigration. Rigny voulut l’écrire. Il s’adresse à nous aujourd’hui.

    #Anarchives #histoire_ouvrière #lutte_de_des_classe

  • Bini Adamczak , Gestern Morgen, , Über die Einsamkeit kommunistischer Gespenster und die Rekonstruktion der Zukunft
    https://kritisch-lesen.de/rezension/gestern-morgen

    Il est de plus en plus rare de trouver des camarades qui sont capables de penser le communisme indépendamment de la confusion et de l’ignorance que subit la gauche depuis bientôt trente sept ans. Bini Adamczak fait partie des gens qui ont conservé une vision claire de notre histoire révolutionnaire. C’est ce que fait comprendre Fritz Güde dans le texte sujvant. A vérifier.

    Es ist Bini Adamczak gelungen, Material, das bisher von den Antikommunisten aller Art aufgeboten wurde, um und umzudrehen, um in ihm nicht Zeugnisse des Siegs der Revolution zu erblicken, wohl aber ihrer Unbesiegbarkeit selbst in Verbrechen und Untergang.

    Neunzig Jahre Oktoberrevolution. Siebzig Jahre Moskauer Prozesse. Die These Bini Adamczaks in ihrem neuen Buch: Wir können nicht erinnernd die Oktoberrevolution 1917 aufgreifen, ohne zuvor auf ihre virtuelle Aufhebung, ja Vernichtung 1937 zu stoßen.

    Sie verrammelt zunächst alle Scheinausgänge. Es kann nicht neu angefangen werden im Rückgang auf Marx. Keinerlei Neujahrsschnee der guten Vorsätze, mit der Zusatzbemerkung: Danach hätte es nur Verfehlungen gegeben, die aber dieses Mal garantiert alle vermieden würden. Die Theorie von Marx selbst bleibt nicht unberührt von den Taten und Untaten derer, die sich auf ihn beriefen.

    Unzulässig, unzugänglich aber auch die heute beliebteste Lösung: 1917 war selbst der größte Fehler. Vergessen wir Oktober 1917 und Februar gleich mit! Es hätte mit dem Zaren so unblutig weitergehen können!

    Unzulässige Ausrede, nicht nur, weil das Zarenregime zu Recht wegen Unfähigkeit abtreten musste. Unzulässig und unmöglich, gerade weil die Opfer der Prozesse 1937 - und alle vorher und nachher - einen unabweisbaren Anspruch erheben: ihren selbst durch Qual, Sibirien, Haft und Tod nicht zum Schweigen zu bringenden Wunsch - aus den erstickten Schlünden - noch zu vernehmen. Die Erkenntnis, dass das Begehren der Erniedrigten und Getöteten erstickt wurde aus dem Innern der Bewegung selbst, der sie anhingen, darf nicht zum Vergessen, muss gerade zum Ernstnehmen führen. ”Nur um der Hoffnungslosen willen ist uns die Hoffnung gegeben” sagt Benjamin in der Wahlverwandtschaften-Arbeit. Bini Adamczak spitzt das sinngemäß weiter zu: Hoffnungslosigkeit enthält einen Appell an alle, die noch Hoffnung zu haben beanspruchen.

    Welche Zeugen ruft Admczak auf, um die schwache Stimme der Zusammengebrochenen für uns hörbar zu machen?

    – Buber-Neumann, Frau des Kommunisten Neumann, die von der Sowjetregierung in die sibirischen Lager geschickt worden war, während der Pakt-Zeit mit vielen anderen deutschen und österreichischen Kommunistinnen und Kommunisten an Deutschland ausgeliefert wurde und dort im KZ Ravensbrück bis zur Befreiung zu überleben hatte.

    – Weißberg-Cybulski, östereichischer Kämpfer im Revolteversuch 1934, einer der schärfsten Analytiker der möglichen Absichten, die das nach außen kontraproduktiv erscheinende Vernichtungswerk Stalins hätte haben können. Genauester Zeuge einer besonderen Art indirekter Folter: des Conveyer. Des stunden- und tagelangen Dauerverhörs durch wechselnde Beamte. Der längste bekannt gewordene Fall umfasst neunzig Stunden - ohne Unterbrechung für den Verhörten. Weissberg-Cybulski erlag immer neu - und leistete zur Verzweiflung der Verhörenden immer neu seinen Widerruf.

    – Herangezogen wird auch Sperbers Riesen-Roman “Wie eine Träne im Ozean”, in den zahllose echte Schicksale verarbeitet wurden.

    Ein ganz furchtbares Beispiel hat Bini Adamczak wieder ausgegraben, von Reinhard Müller herausgegeben in einem Rowohltbändchen: „Die Säuberung. Stenogramm einer geschlossenen Parteisitzung.“ Schriftsteller, die sich ins Exil gerettet hatten, zermartern sich das Hirn, was sie und andere sich an Verbrechen hätten zuschulden kommen lassen können. Wer hat in Prag wen gekannt, der sich später als Trotzkist herausstellte? Oder ging es gar nicht darum?

    Hier sogar im Selbstverhör - ohne einen drängenden Parteibeamten. Das Perfide der Verhörtechnik bestand darin - und hier wurde sie verinnerlicht -, dass dem Beschuldigten kein konkreter Tatvorwurf gemacht wurde. Er selbst hatte sich abzuquälen: Wo lag mein Verbrechen? Da vor den unerfüllbaren Forderungen der Theorie ein jeder die deutlichste Erkenntnis des Versagens hatte (hatte in Deutschland nicht die Konterrevolution in ihrer schändlichsten Form gesiegt?), fand der Bergmann des eigenen Inneren immer allzu viel Unrat. Den er dann unterwürfig präsentierte.

    Lukacs selbst beteiligt sich als externer. Er hatte das Glück, Mitglied des ungarischen Schriftstellervereins zu sein, nicht des deutschen. Auch er verfällt dem bohrenden Dreh, in einer bloßen Depression, die jeden befallen kann, die potentielle Grundlage einer “Plattform” zu erblicken, die - wenn offen deklariert - auf alle Fälle zur Feindschaft gegenüber der Partei hätte führen müssen. Das nur Empfundene, nicht einmal Gedachte, wird bei dieser Art der Gewissenserforschung mit der Notwendigkeit einer Handlung gleichgesetzt. Gerade die Entartung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Gesinnungen zu bestrafen, den Habitus zu entlarven, nicht die einzelne greifbare Tat, wird zum Normalfall dieser sozialistischen Justiz und Selbstjustiz. (Kleine Ehrenrettung für Lukacs: als die härtesten Zeiten vorbei waren, und er hatte selbst Verbannung und Haft überlebt, beschrieb er in einer Besprechung von Solschenizyns „Ein Tag aus dem Leben des Ivan Dennisowitsch“ präzise das Gesamtsystem dieser Zeit, in eine Nuss-Schale gepackt, in den einzigen Tag eines einzigen Häftlings. In diesem kleinen Werk zeigt er die eigene Fesselung vor, das Zappeln in Netz und Seil in unerbittlicher Versenkung ins Detail.)

    Wie war die Selbstunterwerfung, Selbstvernichtung gerade derjenigen möglich, die doch angetreten waren, sich keine Erniedrigung mehr gefallen zu lassen? Wie war es möglich, was damals das meiste Grauen erweckte, dass solche, die den Höllen zaristischer Knäste standgehalten hatten und nazistischer Folter, nun - wie Bucharin im Schlusswort wörtlich sagte - in die Knie gingen.

    Bini Adamczak erinnert daran, dass es im System der Dialektik keine feststehenden Wahrheiten ”von außen” mehr gibt, auf die man sich so berufen könnte wie ein fiktiver Galilei, der darauf setzen konnte, dass - Widerruf hin oder her - die Tatsachen über tausend Beobachtungen der Wissenschaftler trotz allem ans Licht dringen würden und ihn auf jeden Fall noch nach dem Tod rehablitlieren würden. An die Stelle der feststehenden Wahrheit tritt “unsere Gottheit, die Geschichte” (Ingeborg Bachmann). Die hat, wie das Wasser, keine Balken. Nichts, an das man sich klammern könnte. Der Lauf der Geschichte ist veränderlich. Und es könnte dann scheinen nach dem Satz: Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht - dass derjenige, der verloren hat, immer auch mit Recht verlor.

    Woran ermesse ich, dass ich verlor? Die Kommune 1871 wurde schließlich auch besiegt - und blieb doch Vorbild noch für Lenin 1917 im Kreml.

    Nach der Dialektik, verstanden als “Seekrankheit auf festem Land” (Kafka) habe ich als einzigen Bezugspunkt die Massen. Ihre Meinung. Und da auch die schwer zu greifen ist, die Meinung ihrer Bildnerin und Formerin: der Partei. Das Problem hatte Sartre schon in seinem Stück “Schmutzige Hände“ aufgegriffen. Und sein Hugo zerschlägt den Knoten in existenzialistischer Auflehnung. In den Gesprächen aus Sperbers Roman weist Bini Adamczak nach, dass das alles im kläglichsten Zusammensinken enden musste, wenn es vom Theater ins alltägliche Parteileben im Untergrund in Nazideutschland geriet.

    Um ein Beispiel aus neuester Zeit zu nennen, ganz ohne Terror und Zwang, in den Formen größter Höflichkeit vorgetragen. Als Bettelheim seine Zweifel und seine Kritik vortrug gegenüber den absurden Beschuldigungen, die die Konterrevolution unter Hua Kuo Feng gegen die ehemalige Frau Maos und die “Vier” erhob, antwortete ihm ein Anglo-Chinese aus dem chinesischen Staatsdienst in feinster Form: Die Beschuldigungen hätten schon deshalb Hand und Fuß, weil die Massen in China sie aufs Wort glaubten - und weil die selben Massen niemals eine Person aus den Vier so verehren würde wie Mao Tse Tung: Eine Beweisform, die genau den Inszenierungen folgt, die die Moskauer Prozessebestimmten In den ausgesuchtesten Formen wurde ein Beweisgeflecht vorgetragen, das ausschließlich aus Geständnissen aufgebaut war. Kein einziges Original-Schriftstück. Kein materielles Indiz. Keins der gestandenen Attentate, so viele geplant sein sollten, hat je geklappt. Noch außer in Gedanken stattgefunden. Trotzdem hat der Prozess gegen Radek und andere selbst einen Mann wie Feuchtwanger überzeugt. Wie viel mehr diejenigen, die rechts und links von sich in Parteiversammlungen den Urteilen applaudierten - und falls doch noch von Zweifeln befallen, sich vom Klatschen rechts und links betäuben und überzeugen ließen.

    Wie wäre aus der Gefangenschaft im Zirkel von Versuch - Erfolg - Einzelposition - Massenstimmung herauszukommen?

    Eine ewige Wahrheit außerhalb können wir nicht einfach wieder statuieren, nachdem die Dialektik die Welt einmal ins Wirbeln und Schwanken gebracht hat. (Solschneizyn weist im Archipel Gulag oft auf die Christen hin, die seit den Märtyrerprozessen im alten Rom in sämtlichen Systemen standhaft blieben, weil sie auf einen unabhängigen Richter außerhalb zurückgreifen konnten - gegenüber dem machtwoll kläglichen irdischen. Bewundersnwert, nur können wir uns Büchners “kommode Religion” nicht schnell auf Rezept verschreiben, wenn wir sie als Seelenstütze nötig hätten.)

    Die Lösung liegt vielleicht in der letzten Frage, die in den Kapiteln V und VI gestellt wird. Hätten, fragt Adamczak, nicht die Revolutionäre angesichts der zu erwartenden Gräuel der Konterrevolution, die immer mitgedacht und erwartet werden muss, hätten diese nicht einfach gleich aufgeben sollen? Wie es die Allende-Regierung 1973 nach Ansicht der Verfasserin getan hat.

    Vom Standpunkt der Leidensvermeidung stellt sich Weglosigkeit her (griechisch: Aporie). Eine Situation, in der nicht mehr richtig gehandelt werden kann. Revolution verursacht Leiden, Konterrevolution noch mehr. Dann wäre um der Leidvermeidung willen Schweigen das wichtigste. Hinunterschlucken der Empörung, Verhüllung des Widerspruchs. Nichtsprache statt Sprache. Nur: dann dürfte das Schweigegebot sich nicht auf die einzelne Sache beschränken, den aufgegebenen Aufstand. Es müsste auch darüber geschwiegen werden, warum geschwiegen wird. Und auch über das Schweigegebot selbst. Im unendlichen Rekurs. Ein allgemeines Sprachverbot würde Menschsein selber platt machen. Es ist nicht durchzuhalten.

    Dann heißt aber die Gegenantwort: Damit es einen Anhaltspunkt des Redens und Erinnerns gibt, muss gehandelt werden. Die furchtbaren Leiden, die das Buch uns vorführt, sind einzige Möglichkeit, aber auch Verpflichtung, demjenigen Wirklichkeit, Unauslöschlichkeit, Nichtzurücknehmbarkeit zuzuschreiben, was damals in den Jahren 1917 und den folgenden geschah. Die Schreie aus dem Totenhaus, die damals durch die Mauern drangen, sie sind es, die uns ein Begehren fassbar und zugänglich machen, das nie erfüllt wurde und doch in keinem Verzicht begraben werden kann.

    Es ist Bini Adamczak gelungen, Material, das bisher von den Antikommunisten aller Art aufgeboten wurde, um und um zu drehen, um in ihm nicht Zeugnisse des Siegs der Revolution zu erblicken, wohl aber ihrer Unbesiegbarkeit selbst in Verbrechen und Untergang. Wie der von Adamczak zitierte Zwi Schritkopcher zum “Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus” von Courtois seinerzeit meinte: ”Als kompakten Anfang zu einer Bestandaufnahme hätten wir Communisten die Materialsammlung und Streitschrift des Schwarzbuchs allererst zu begrüßen statt apologetisch abzuwehren” (S. 24). Was hier als Anregung in einem Satz ausgesprochen wurde, hat Bini Adamczak in ihrem Buch angewandt und ausgestaltet.

    Die Rezension erschien zuerst November 2007 auf stattweb.de (Update: kritisch-lesen.de, sfr, 3/2011)

    Mittlerweile erschien eine zweite, überarbeitete Auflage bei Edition Assemblage und Unrast.

    Bini Adamczak 2007:
    Gestern Morgen. Über die Einsamkeit kommunistischer Gespenster und die Rekonstruktion der Zukunft.
    Unrast Verlag, Münster.
    ISBN: 978-3-89771-465-6.
    160 Seiten. 12,00 Euro.

    Zitathinweis: Fritz Güde: Gestern Morgen. Erschienen in: Zeichen des Aufstands. 4/ 2011. URL: https://kritisch-lesen.de/s/RX9uv. Abgerufen am: 25. 06. 2026 14:19.

    #histoire #révolution #communisme

  • Rigny et l’enquêteur sérendipienHistoire d’une anarchive populaire (I)
    https://abasbruit.org/2026/06/21/rigny-et-lenqueteur-serendipienhistoire-dune-anarchive-populaire-i

    Voici l’aventure de la découverte des écrits de Jean-Baptiste Rigny, artisan et « homme gris », obstiné, né deux ans avant la #révolution française. Un de ces hommes obscurs dont le destin est une fuite de son encagement social. Là où peut-être nait toujours l’insolence du politique. Et dont les traces se perdent (et se retrouvent comme on le verra) dans les États-Unis où le conduira sa migration. Mais peut-être que la politique est aussi toujours une émigration. Rigny voulut l’écrire. Il s’adresse à nous aujourd’hui.

    #Anarchives #histoire_ouvrière #lutte_de_des_classe

  • Le capitalisme n’est pas un destin
    https://laviedesidees.fr/Lowy-Guillibert-Marx-Narodnik

    Marx reste souvent lu comme un auteur déterministe, théoricien d’un processus historique conduisant au nécessaire dépassement du capitalisme. Une partie de son œuvre tardive invite à nuancer cette lecture.

    #Philosophie #Marx

    • À la suite de sa lecture de Tchernychevski, c’est la correspondance avec Vera Zassoulitch qui permet à Marx d’achever sa mutation intellectuelle. Le comprendre exige de reprendre en détail les arguments donnés par Zassoulitch ainsi que leur reprise par Marx. Cette lettre, datée du 8 mars 1881, mais aussi ses quatre brouillons préparatoires, restés inédits jusqu’à leur publication en 1924, posent la question suivante : La #Russie est-elle obligée de passer par le stade du capitalisme afin d’atteindre le socialisme ? Ce n’est pas, selon Marx, une étape nécessaire. Le processus pour lequel il est le plus connu, à savoir l’expropriation des producteurs afin de constituer un capital, puis la prolétarisation généralisée, ne s’applique pas à la Russie. Les analyses de son ouvrage majeur valent principalement pour le modèle propre à l’Europe occidentale. Il s’agit là de l’argument central de la pensée du dernier Marx : ses analyses n’ont pas vocation à être universalisées et étendues à d’autres régions géographiques. Il existe plusieurs voies pour accéder au communisme.

      #mir #possession_communale #narodniki #Nikolaï_Tchernychevski #Véra_Zassoulitch #théorie #révolution

    • Le dernier Marx, Sous la direction de Kolja Lindner - Éditions de l’Asymétrie, Toulouse, 2019, 400 pages, 20 euros.
      https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2020/04/CLOUET/61641

      Découvrir le « Marx tardif », de plus en plus soucieux d’étudier les sociétés précapitalistes pour préciser ses analyses : à cette fin, les éditeurs compilent des extraits des notes prises par lui lors de ses lectures d’historiens, anthropologues, etc., précédés de solides introductions théoriques. Ils montrent comment il cultive le doute méthodologique et combat toute pensée dogmatique dans les dix dernières années de sa vie. Dans ces textes, il pense la démocratie avec les Iroquois, la famille avec les brahmanes, la question foncière avec l’Algérie et l’Inde, ou la commune rurale avec la Russie. Il développe trois idées inattendues pour le lecteur habitué à une certaine vulgate marxienne : le capitalisme n’évolue pas par stades linéaires mais connaît des temporalités irrégulières et contradictoires ; les mouvements historiques ne se diffusent pas depuis l’Europe mais naissent dans une relation combinée avec la périphérie ; des traces d’émancipation peuvent être repérées dans les procédures de décision collectives qu’ont développées de nombreuses populations sans État.

      Hadrien Clouet

      Une présentation plus substantielle, avec un extrait de Karl Marx et les iroquois
      https://editionsasymetrie.org/ouvrage/le-dernier-marx

      #anthropologie #E._P._Thompson

    • “La tâche du Manifeste communiste, c’était de proclamer la disparition inévitable et imminente de l’actuelle propriété bourgeoise. Or, en Russie, à côté d’un ordre capitaliste qui se développe avec une hâte fébrile, à côté de la propriété foncière bourgeoise seulement en train de se constituer, nous constatons que plus de la moitié du sol forme la propriété commune des paysans. Une question se pose donc : la commune paysanne russe – forme, il est vrai, très désagrégée déjà de propriété commune primitive du sol – peut-elle se transformer directement en une forme communiste supérieure de la propriété foncière ? Ou bien devra-t-elle subir préalablement le même procès de dissolution qui se manifeste dans l’évolution historique de l’Occident ? La seule réponse que l’on puisse actuellement faire à cette question est la suivante : si la révolution russe devient le signal d’une révolution ouvrière à l’Occident de façon que les deux révolutions se complètent, l’actuelle propriété commune russe peut devenir le point de départ d’une évolution communiste”

      Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, préface à l’édition russe du Manifeste du parti communiste, 1882.

    • LE DERNIER MARX, COMMUNISME EN DEVENIR - Karl Marx, Michael Löwy, Pier Paolo Poggio, #Maximilien_Rubel, 80p., octobre 2018, ens Etérotopia
      https://www.eterotopiafrance.com/catalogue/le-dernier-marx-communisme-en-devenir

      L’ouvrage : Dans les années 1881-1882, Marx développe un intérêt particulier pour les sociétés pré-capitalistes (parmi lesquelles notamment les communautés rurales russes) ainsi que pour des pays comme l’Égypte, l’Algérie ou l’Inde, où s’engagent alors des luttes contre la domination capitaliste.

    • Marx et la commune rurale russe : cui prodest ? Il Lato Cattivo [ décembre 2014 ]

      La crise actuelle du mode production capitaliste est, bien compréhensiblement, porteuse d’un nouveau intérêt pour Marx. Dans la profusion des publications – académiques ou non – qui apparaissent un peu partout, aux USA et en Europe mais pas seulement, certains travaux d’un certain intérêt ne tardent pas à percer. Il y a par contre, comme cela advient à chaque fois qu’une étude touche à la « marxologie », le défaut de vouloir découvrir et faire découvrir le vrai Marx, contre les faux Marx d’un passé généralement associé aux méchants souvenir du « socialisme réel ». Enfants d’une téléologie qui voit dans l’histoire l’affrontement du Vrai et du Faux, des telles ambitions, bien qu’elles puissent parfois être fécondes, nous disent davantage sur les fantasmes des auteurs en question et sur leur époque que sur Marx lui-même. Chaque génération, comme l’écrivit Karel Kosík dans Dialectique du concret (Maspero, Paris, 1970), cherche et découvre dans le texte marxien ce qui est nécessaire pour exercer une prise théorique sur son présent et, par conséquent, met en relief certains aspects de Marx pour en écarter d’autres ; chaque génération, en somme, s’abreuve à la source originelle pour la traduire (la trahir) une fois de plus. Le Marx évolutionniste et progressiste de la Seconde Internationale était-il une simple falsification ? Ou était-ce plutôt la lecture plus naturelle que l’on pouvait donner de Marx, dans les conditions de la Belle Époque qui précédèrent la Première Guerre mondiale ? Engels n’écrivit-il pas que la période des bouleversements violents, au moins pour les pays capitalistes les plus développés, était terminée ?

      Avec les brouillons et la lettre de Marx à Véra Zassoulitch.

      #communisme ± #téléologie #orthodoxie #dogmatisme

    • Karl Marx et le socialisme populiste russe, Maximilien Rubel, 1947
      https://www.marxists.org/francais/rubel/works/1947/rubel_19470500.htm

      I. Histoire d’un oubli historique

      Au début des années 80 du siècle dernier, la colonie des révolutionnaires russes réfugiée à Genève accueillit dans ses rangs plusieurs nouvelles recrues qui venaient de faire leurs armes dans le premier mouvement socialiste qu’eût connu la Russie des tsars : le populisme (narodnitchestvo)[1]. (Quatre de ces nouveaux arrivants seront, quelques années plus tard, les pionniers de la social-démocratie russe d’orientation marxiste : G.-V. Plékhanov, P. Axelrod, L. Deutsch et Véra Zassoulitch[2]).

      Avant leur conversion au #Marxisme, ils avaient appartenu à une des organisations illégales du mouvement populiste qui, en 1879, après l’attentat manqué de l’instituteur A. Soloviev contre Alexandre II, s’était scindé en deux fractions : le groupe dit du Partage Noir (Tchnorny Pérédiel) et celui de la Volonté du Peuple (Narodnaïa Volia). Unanimes sur le but à atteindre – leur programme était en somme la réalisation du #socialisme_agraire rêvé par tous les idéologues populistes, de Herzen à Tchernychevski et à Lavrov – ils étaient en désaccord sur les méthodes de lutte à employer en vue de renverser le régime tsariste.

      Tandis que le premier groupe voulait rester fidèle aux traditions populistes en intensifiant la propagande dans les villages et en refusant de donner à leur marche vers le peuple une signification politique, le second proclamait la nécessité d’entrer dans la lutte directe systématiquement menée avec l’autorité, d’en hâter l’effondrement et d’atteindre ainsi un objectif politique important : la convocation d’une assemblée constituante.

  • Ulrike Guérot auf Twi_X: Diskurs im @DLF über die Krise des Liberalismus und die Angst der Linken vor „dem Volk“:

    via https://diaspora.psyco.fr/p/12519597

    https://x.com/ulrikeguerot/status/2063531583315771741

    #Neoliberalismus #Postliberalismus #Integralismus #Konservatismus #Academia #Autonomie #Wahlfreiheit #Emanzipation #soziale_Bindung #Bildung #Solidarität #Demokratie #Misstrauen #Bevölkerung #Technokratie #Elitismus #Schutzbedürftigkeit

    ♲ Lykanthrop_ - 2026-06-07 10:01:56 GMT

    Postliberalismus – Die Machtfrage – Muss die Linke sich von ihrem eigenen Liberalismus befreien?

    https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/postliberalismus-krise-der-linken-demokratie-100.html

    Liberale linke, verloren im Spannungsfeld zwischen Pöbel und Aristokraten.

    #soziale Bindung

    • DLF - Von Nils Schniederjann | 07.06.2026

      [le script complet de l’émission, à lire en même temps que vous écoutez]

      Die politische Linke steckt in der Krise. In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten hat sie ihre Fähigkeit verloren, eine glaubwürdige Alternative zum bestehenden System anzubieten. Damit hat sie ihr ureigenstes Terrain preisgegeben. Wie konnte das geschehen?


      Silhouetten von Demonstranten mit Fahnen und einem Transparent
      Mehr Demokratie wagen! Wie die Linke sich neu erfinden kann
      (Getty Images / iStockphoto / Marek Trawczynski)

      Es gibt einen sehr einfachen, aber tiefgreifenden Grund für den Niedergang der gesellschaftlichen Linken: Sie ist liberal geworden. Sie verteidigt individuelle Rechte statt auf kollektive Macht zu setzen, sie blickt bei politischen Auseinandersetzungen auf Verfassungsgerichte statt auf Volkssouveränität, flüchtet in juristische Verfahren.

      Auf der anderen Seite des politischen Spektrums wird der Liberalismus hingegen mit neuer Härte attackiert: Die sogenannten „Postliberalen“ versuchen, das Politische jenseits liberaler Einhegung zu denken. Was, wenn man von den Postliberalen etwas lernen kann? Was würde es für die Linke bedeuten, sich aus dem Bündnis mit dem Liberalismus zu lösen? Gibt es vielleicht sogar das Potenzial für eine „postliberale Linke“?

      Nils Schniederjann ist Journalist in Berlin. Für den Deutschlandfunk moderiert er unter anderem das Magazin für Politische Literatur „Andruck“ und die halbstündige Gesprächssendung „Tacheles“. Gemeinsam mit Sebastian Friedrich betreibt er außerdem den Newsletter und Podcast „Über Rechts“.

      Karlsruhe, am 24. März 2021. An diesem Tag verkündet das Bundesverfassungsgericht ein Urteil, das sich rasant verbreitet: Der Staat, so heißt es darin, darf die Freiheit künftiger Generationen nicht durch unterlassene Klimaschutzmaßnahmen einschränken. In der klimabewegten Linken wird das Urteil euphorisch aufgenommen. Die Linkspartei nennt es einen „Meilenstein im Kampf gegen den Klimawandel“. Auch Gruppen aus dem linksradikalen Spektrum feiern, dass das Verfassungsgericht den Staat zum Handeln zwinge.

      Das Urteil reicht weit hinein in die Politik und es verengt die Spielräume dessen, was politisch möglich ist. Nicht nur musste die damalige Regierung ihre Klimagesetzgebung verschärfen; jede Regierung, die in Zukunft hinter die bestehenden Ziele zurückfallen möchte, dürfte Probleme mit den Karlsruher Richtern bekommen. Gerade diese Einengung des politisch Möglichen feiert die Linke damals.

      Man könnte das leicht abtun: Jede Bewegung nutzt die Mittel, die ihr zur Verfügung stehen. Wenn die Aussichten auf Erfolg vor Gericht höher sind als im Parlament, dann sollte man sie nutzen. Doch dass sich die politische Linke so leicht für nicht-majoritäre Wege erwärmen lässt, steht für ein größeres Problem. Und der Klimabeschluss ist nur ein Beispiel unter vielen: Von der Geldpolitik über die Handelspolitik bis zur Migration hat man in den vergangenen Jahren eine ganze Reihe grundsätzlicher Fragen dem demokratischen Prozess entzogen und sie in die Hände von Gerichten, Zentralbanken und europäischen Institutionen gelegt.

      Dass die Linke – von der gemäßigten Sozialdemokratie bis weit ins linksradikale, vor allem klimabewegte Spektrum hinein – das nicht nur hingenommen, sondern häufig begrüßt hat, ist kein Zufall. Es hat mit einem grundlegenden Wandel zu tun: Ein guter Teil der Linken ist liberal geworden. Und sie hat, wie die Liberalen seit Jahrhunderten, Angst vor dem Volk.

      Zunehmend wird dieses Bündnis mit dem Liberalismus zum Problem für das linke Lager. Denn die liberale Hegemonie der vergangenen 25 Jahre kommt an ihr Ende. Was aber hieße es, „nicht wie ein Liberaler zu denken“, wie der Philosoph Raymond Geuss einmal fragte? Und wie sähe eine postliberale Politik aus, die nicht hinter die Errungenschaften des Liberalismus fällt, sondern über sie hinausgeht?

      Um diese Fragen zu beantworten, muss man zunächst verstehen, was der Liberalismus ist. Die politische Philosophie stellt diese Frage seit fast 300 Jahren vor erhebliche Herausforderungen, so vielfältig ist, was sich unter diesem Begriff fassen lässt. Es muss hier eine Minimaldefinition reichen: Wer liberal ist, vertritt im Kern das Projekt, die individuelle Autonomie zu erhöhen. Ursprünglich taten Liberale das, indem sie das politische Mitspracherecht einfacher Bürger gegen die feudale Herrschaft erkämpften. Seitdem das freie und allgemeine Wahlrecht sich durchgesetzt hat, also je nach Staat seit etwa 100 Jahren, waren es noch zwei Sphären, in denen die individuelle Autonomie auf einen Höchststand zu bringen war: die Wirtschaft und die Kultur.

      Im Bereich der Wirtschaft knüpfte sich das Autonomiestreben von Anfang an daran, den Markt von allen angeblich unzulässigen Einschränkungen zu befreien. Allen Spielarten des Wirtschaftsliberalismus war gemeinsam, dass sie die Autonomie der wirtschaftlichen Akteure erhöhen wollten. Wenn zwei Personen sich entscheiden, einen Vertrag einzugehen, dann sollte das geschehen, egal wie ungerecht dieser Vertrag auch aussehen mochte.

      Die andere Seite des liberalen Projekts spielt sich auf gesellschaftspolitischer Ebene ab: Jeder sollte leben können, wie er oder sie wollte. Der Staat sollte sich gegenüber unterschiedlichen Lebensformen möglichst neutral verhalten. Überall, wo dem Menschen von seinen Mitbürgern Vorschriften gemacht, Ansprüche an ihn gestellt, er zu einer gewissen Lebensform gedrängt werden sollte, entdeckte der Liberale ein neues emanzipatorisches Projekt: Zunächst die Religionsfreiheit, später die Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit, im 20. Jahrhundert die sexuelle Befreiung von Konventionen. Inzwischen ist es die Existenz binärer Geschlechterordnungen überhaupt, die kritisch betrachtet wird, weil sie die individuelle Autonomie einschränke.

      Die Wette der Linksliberalen war dabei stets, dass beide Formen des Liberalismus nichts miteinander zu tun haben; dass man für gesellschaftspolitische Liberalisierungen und gleichzeitig gegen den Wirtschaftsliberalismus kämpfen könne. Lassen sich die beiden Projekte aber wirklich so leicht voneinander trennen? Der französische Philosoph Jean-Claude Michéa hat die überzeugendste Gegenthese formuliert: Beide Projekte gehen von abstrakten, nicht in konkrete Gemeinschaften eingebetteten Individuen aus, deren atomisierte Wünsche und Interessen man durch einen möglichst klaren rechtlichen Rahmen vor den Ansprüchen ihrer Mitmenschen abschirmen sollte.

      Natürlich kann ein einzelner Mensch gleichzeitig für Abtreibungsrechte und für die Verstaatlichung der Energiekonzerne eintreten. Doch Michéa beschreibt eine kulturelle Dynamik des allseits wirksamen Hintergrundrauschens des Liberalismus. Wo die Idee, dass jeder vor den Ansprüchen seiner Mitmenschen geschützt werden soll, zur Leitidee einer Gesellschaft wird, dort erodieren über kurz oder lang auch die solidarischen Bindungen, die für eine Umverteilungspolitik oder ein solidarisches Zusammenleben nötig wären. Wer jeden Anspruch der Gemeinschaft an das Individuum als Zumutung betrachtet, dem fällt es schwer zu erklären, warum der Anspruch auf einen gerechten Anteil am gesellschaftlichen Reichtum davon ausgenommen sein sollte.

      Man muss Michéas Diagnose nicht in aller Radikalität teilen um anzuerkennen, dass die Trennung zwischen einem „guten“ kulturellen und einem „schlechten“ ökonomischen Liberalismus schwieriger ist, als es sich weite Teile der Linken lange eingeredet haben. Beide Projekte teilen eine Vorstellung von Individuum, Gesellschaft und Staat: Weil es kein höheres Gut gibt, auf das eine Gesellschaft gemeinsam hinarbeiten könnte, gibt es für den Liberalen nur vereinzelte Individuen, deren Ansprüche aufeinanderprallen. Um die Spannung zu lösen, die damit auf der atomisierten Gesellschaft liegt, muss der liberale Staat selbst neutral sein.

      Doch in dieser Idee steckt ein Paradox: Der Liberalismus verspricht einen Staat, der sich heraushält. Doch indem er die überlieferten Bindungen auflöst, die den Menschen bisher Orientierung gaben – Familie, religiöse Gemeinschaft, Gewerkschaften, kommunale Solidarstrukturen –, erzeugt er eine atomisierte Gesellschaft, die immer stärker auf staatliche Regulierung angewiesen ist. Wo früher Nachbarschaft, Zunft oder Gemeinde Konflikte lösen konnte, muss jetzt ein Gesetz her. Das Endresultat des siegreichen Liberalismus ist deshalb nicht der schlanke Staat, sondern ein Staat, der immer mehr Lebensbereiche rechtlich reguliert.

      Angesichts dieser Wurzeln muss man sich wundern, dass gerade die Linke sich diesem Projekt angeschlossen hat. Der Klassenkampf diente historisch nie dem Ziel, den Staat möglichst neutral zu stellen. Am Ende des Kampfes wollte man ihn vielmehr übernehmen. Die Selbstverwirklichung des Einzelnen war ohne kollektive Macht über Staat und Ökonomie nicht zu haben.

      Im Laufe des 20. Jahrhunderts änderte sich jedoch die strategische Ausrichtung – nicht immer aus freien Stücken, sondern unter dem Druck struktureller Verwerfungen. Die neoliberale Umstrukturierung des Kapitalismus seitdem, die Globalisierung mit dem Bedeutungsverlust der industriellen Arbeiterklasse in den westlichen Zentren und schließlich der Zusammenbruch des Realsozialismus entzogen der alten Linken ihre soziale Basis und ihre politische Perspektive.

      In dieser Situation setzten sich zunehmend jene Strömungen durch, die ihr jeweiliges Einzelinteresse an der spezifischen Emanzipation von gesellschaftlichen Zwängen durchsetzen wollten: die Ökologiebewegung, die Schwulenbewegung, die wiederbelebte Frauenbewegung, Menschenrechtsgruppen, Hausbesetzer. Diese Gruppen wollten den Staat nicht im Sinne einer universell verstandenen Klasse übernehmen, sondern das individuelle Recht auf Selbstverwirklichung durchsetzen. Ob sie es beabsichtigten oder nicht: Das Ergebnis war nicht die Überwindung der liberalen Ordnung, sondern die Integration in sie.

      Nicht nur die radikale Linke schlug diesen Weg ein. Auch die Sozialdemokratie entledigte sich jedes Anspruchs auf politische Eingriffe, die die Autonomie einzelner zugunsten kollektiver Ziele bewusst einschränken, also Verstaatlichungen, die Planung der Wirtschaft oder bindende Pflichten gegenüber dem Gemeinwesen. Schon 1959 erklärte die SPD in ihrem Godesberger Programm, der demokratische Sozialismus wolle „keine letzten Wahrheiten verkünden“, denn es sei weder Aufgabe einer Partei noch des Staates, über die Glaubensentscheidungen des Menschen zu bestimmen. Von einer systematischen Alternative zum Kapitalismus wollte die SPD seitdem nichts mehr wissen. Dass dieser neutrale Staat des Liberalismus aber nicht nur ein Versprechen, sondern auch eine Drohung sein kann, zeigte schließlich Gerhard Schröder. Wer arbeitslos wurde, ist seit der Agenda 2010 vor allem eines: selbst dafür verantwortlich.

      Die Philosophin Nancy Fraser nannte das Ergebnis dieser Verschiebungen einmal „progressiven Neoliberalismus“: Linke hatten sich scheinbar mit dem Kapitalismus arrangiert, solange das eigene Leben weitestgehend selbstbestimmt gestaltet werden konnte. Das Projekt ist aber keine inkohärente Kombination eigentlich „guter“ progressiver Werte mit dem „schlechten“ ökonomischen Neoliberalismus. Vielmehr erleben wir eine Linke, die auf beiden Feldern liberal geworden ist.

      Das Ergebnis war ein Verlust an kollektiver politischer Macht und die Flucht in die Arme von staatlicher Finanzierung, Verfassungsgerichten und den europäischen Gerichtshöfen. Im Großen und Ganzen hängt der Erfolg linker Projekte inzwischen davon ab, ob sie ihre Ziele auf nicht-majoritärem Weg durchsetzen können. Das Ziel, eine Mehrheit von einem grundsätzlich anderen politischen Projekt zu überzeugen, ist in weite Ferne gerückt.

      Bemerkenswert ist, dass nicht alle politischen Strömungen eine solche Entwicklung durchgemacht haben. In der Rechten ist der Glaube, eine Mehrheit von einem fundamental anderen Staat überzeugen zu können, in der gleichen Zeit sogar gewachsen. Und postliberale Denker wie Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule und Sohrab Ahmari greifen den Liberalismus frontal an. Während die Linke sich immer enger an ihn gekettet hat, ist zumindest ein Teil der Rechten auf größeren Abstand gegangen.

      Die zentrale Diagnose dieser rechten Denker lautet, dass die gemeinschaftlichen Strukturen, die den Menschen hervorbringen und beherbergen, vom Liberalismus zerstört werden. Soweit unterscheidet sich die Diagnose kaum von anderen konservativen Denkern. Was die Postliberalen aber von den traditionellen Antiliberalen unterscheidet, ist ein entscheidender Perspektivwechsel: Die postliberalen Denker sehen die negativen Effekte des Liberalismus nicht als Ausdruck seines Scheiterns, sondern als Ausdruck seines Sieges.

      Das war bei den Feinden des Liberalismus üblicherweise anders: Die Konservativen Revolutionäre etwa hielten die politische Apathie der Bürger für einen Defekt des schwächlichen Liberalismus mit seinem betäubenden Parlamentarismus. Die Postliberalen sehen dieselbe Apathie, deuten sie aber umgekehrt: Der Liberalismus wollte die großen Fragen dem demokratischen Streit entziehen. Dass die Menschen sich von der Politik abwenden, ist deshalb kein Zeichen seines Scheiterns, sondern gerade die Quittung für seinen Erfolg.

      Die Politikwissenschaftler Veith Selk und Julian Nicolai Hofmann haben das treffend eine „Siegkrise des Liberalismus“ genannt. Sie stellen fest, dass diese Siegkrise nicht nur von Postliberalen diagnostiziert wird, sondern sich inzwischen in zahlreichen sozialwissenschaftlichen Beiträgen über die Erosion der Demokratie und den strukturellen Wandel moderner Gesellschaften finden lässt. Reagieren die Postliberalen also nur auf Strukturbrüche, die längst offensichtlich geworden sind?

      Entscheidend ist, dass die Postliberalen den Liberalismus als ein umfassendes Projekt verstehen, dessen zwei Seiten der kulturelle und der ökonomische Liberalismus sind. Beides lehnen sie ab. Das postliberale Projekt verbindet dabei Positionen, die in der üblichen Links-Rechts-Ordnung kaum zusammenpassen: gewerkschaftsfreundliche Wirtschaftspolitik mit kulturellem Konservativismus, Kritik an Großkonzernen mit dem Eintreten für traditionelle Familienformen.

      Und so kommt weder die Rechte, in deren Mittelpunkt traditionell die Sicherung des Privateigentums steht, bei ihnen gut weg, noch die Linke, die bestehende Normen im Namen der individuellen Autonomie abschaffen möchte. Der Liberalismus, so formulierte es der Postliberale Adrian Pabst, habe behauptet, die Gesellschaft von der Tyrannei der Werte zu befreien. In Wahrheit aber habe er eine neue Tyrannei eingeführt: die, von allen gegenseitigen Verpflichtungen befreit zu sein.

      Während die Postliberalen in dieser Diagnose fast alle übereinstimmen, ist das Feld in Bezug auf konkrete Lösungsvorschläge durchaus plural. Manche wollen den Staat nutzen, um Vereine, Gewerkschaften und Genossenschaften zu stärken. Sie orientieren sich eher an klassischen sozialdemokratischen Ideen. Auf der anderen Seite stehen Integralisten wie Adrian Vermeule, der eine am Naturrecht orientierte Staatsdoktrin fordert, oder Patrick Deneen, der prominenteste Vordenker, der auf lokale Gegengemeinschaften und Pflichtdienste setzt, um konservative Tugenden wiederzubeleben.

      Die Lösungen zeigen also in verschiedene Richtungen. Was die Postliberalen in ihrer Kritik teilen, sind drei Punkte: Erstens kritisieren sie den Liberalismus gerade wegen seines umfassenden Sieges. Zweitens identifizieren sie die akademisch gebildete Dienstleistungsschicht in Medien, Verwaltung, NGOs und Universitäten als soziale Trägerschicht des liberalen Projekts. Und drittens befürworten sie eine Politik der Gemeinwohlorientierung, die über das liberale Minimum hinausgeht.

      Damit haben die Postliberalen den Linken etwas voraus. Denn in der Linken, so bekommt man den Eindruck, herrscht aktuell eine im Grunde liberale Kritik am liberalen System vor: Das Problem am Liberalismus ist dort höchstens, dass er noch nicht umfassend genug durchgesetzt wurde. Die marxistische Tradition hat zwar immer zwischen formaler und realer Freiheit unterschieden – doch in der politischen Praxis der letzten Jahrzehnte ist diese Unterscheidung weitgehend wirkungslos geblieben.

      Die Postliberalen hingegen haben verstanden, dass der Liberalismus gerade dort scheitern muss, wo er umgesetzt wird. Das Projekt der größtmöglichen Autonomie untergräbt sich letztlich selbst, weil der Mensch nicht ohne Bindungen leben kann – auch wenn kein Liberaler das offen behaupten würde, setzt der Liberalismus es in seiner politischen Praxis stillschweigend voraus. Zumindest betrachtet er alle Formen der Bindung unter dem Primat der individuellen Wahlfreiheit. Der Liberalismus hat natürlich dort eine sinnvolle Funktion, wo er die Menschen von Bindungen löst, die ihre historische Funktion überlebt haben. Doch er kann nur wirkliche Emanzipation schaffen, wo er zugleich alternative Bindungen ermöglicht. Wo er bloß auflöst, siegt und scheitert er zugleich: Er setzt sich durch, aber das Ergebnis ist nicht die versprochene Freiheit, sondern es sind Vereinzelung und Orientierungslosigkeit.

      So erhellend die Diagnose der Postliberalen ist – an einer entscheidenden Stelle muss man widersprechen. Meist führt die postliberale Elitenkritik zur Forderung nach einer anderen, besseren Elite. Patrick Deneen nennt seine ideale Politik einen „Aristopopulismus“: eine im altgriechischen Sinne von „áristos“ – also dem Vorzüglichen – ausgewählte Elite, die aber im Sinne des Populären agiert. Ähnlich ist es bei den meisten anderen postliberalen Denkern: Sie alle können sich nicht vorstellen, dass die Menschen in der Lage wären, ohne Führung einer Elite über sich selbst zu bestimmen.

      Dahinter steckt letztlich eine Verachtung der einfachen Menschen. Diese teilen die Postliberalen mit den liberalen Technokraten. Beiden müsste sich die Linke eigentlich entgegenstellen: Sie müsste eine Kritik am Liberalismus verknüpfen mit einem uneingeschränkten Bekenntnis zur Demokratie. Das hieße jedoch auch, die Formel von der „liberalen Demokratie“ kritischer als bisher zu betrachten.

      Denn diese ist bei genauerer Betrachtung ein widersprüchliches Projekt: Was Autonomie bedeutet, hängt zwar davon ab, wen man fragt. Doch der Liberale versteht darunter zunächst, in seinen Entscheidungen und Handlungen nicht von anderen eingeschränkt zu werden – eine negative Freiheit, die alles Bindende als Zumutung begreift. Die Demokratie aber, wie jede andere Form der Herrschaft, ist eine solche Einschränkung durch Bindung: Jedes Gesetz bedeutet, dass die Handlungsspielräume für irgendjemanden kleiner werden. Auch dort, wo Gesetze Spielräume erweitern, tun sie das stets auf Kosten anderer: Das Recht auf Arbeitslosengeld sorgt bei den Arbeitslosen für mehr Geld in der Tasche, schränkt aber die Möglichkeiten derjenigen ein, die Sozialabgaben zahlen, also Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitgeber.

      In der Demokratie sind wir bereit, unseren Mitmenschen Zugriff auf unser Leben zu gewähren: Ich akzeptiere Gesetze, die meine Autonomie einschränken, im Wissen, dass es beim nächsten Mal ich sein kann, der andere einschränkt. Die Demokratie ist Herrschaft auf Zeit. Herrschaft bleibt sie trotzdem. Und genau das ist dem Liberalen stets ein Dorn im Auge. Deshalb gab es von Anfang an eine Spannung zwischen der Idee des Liberalismus und der Idee der Demokratie. Unsere liberale Demokratie zeichnet sich gerade durch eine Reihe von Maßnahmen aus, mit denen der demokratisch legitimierte Zugriff des Staates auf seine Bürger eingeschränkt wird. Der Liberalismus versucht, die Demokratie „unter Beobachtung“ zu stellen, wie es der Politikwissenschaftler Philip Manow formuliert hat.
      Dafür soll sich der demokratische Staat möglichst neutral verhalten. Wo er zu stark in das Leben seiner Bürger eingreift, sollen Gerichte ihn zurückrufen können. Außerdem wurde das Recht gegen die Politik immunisiert: Die Justiz soll möglichst unabhängig von politischen Prozessen arbeiten. Das führte schließlich dazu, dass individuelle Rechte einen Vorrang erlangt haben gegenüber kollektiv getroffenen Entscheidungen. Alle drei Mechanismen gründen letztlich im Misstrauen gegenüber dem Volk. Diese liberale Angst vor einer „Tyrannei der Mehrheit“ lässt sich bei vielen liberalen Vordenkern beobachten: bei Tocqueville genauso wie bei John Stuart Mill, bei Isaiah Berlin genauso wie bei den Architekten der europäischen Nachkriegsordnung.

      Das Ergebnis ist, dass der politische Prozess zu einem guten Teil stillgelegt wird. Natürlich gibt es noch Fragen, über die sich politisch streiten lässt: Dürfen Behörden gendern? Soll die Arbeitslosenversicherung Bürgergeld oder Grundsicherung heißen? Aber die großen Pflöcke, an denen sich entscheidet, wie eine Gesellschaft grundsätzlich funktioniert, stehen nicht mehr zur Debatte: Die Geldpolitik wird von unabhängigen Technokraten festgelegt, bei der Migration verweist man auf die europäischen Gerichtshöfe, auf die Handelspolitik haben nationale Parlamente gar keinen Einfluss mehr. Sie alle sind demokratischen Entscheidungen größtenteils oder vollständig entzogen. Was für die einen ein Demokratiedefizit ist, ist für den Liberalen eigentlich nur konsequent: Grundlegende Fragen der Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsordnung müssen, um den Staat möglichst neutral zu halten, dem demokratischen Streit entzogen werden.

      Dieser technokratischen Einhegung demokratischer Mehrheiten unterlaufen zwei Fehler. Erstens ist die Annahme, es könne überhaupt einen neutralen, aber dennoch demokratischen Staat geben, eine Illusion. Nehmen wir das Beispiel der Familienpolitik. Die lokalen Strukturen, die Familien früher trugen, gehen unter dem Druck des liberalen Autonomieversprechens langsam unter. Und so muss der Staat selbst mit Elterngeld, Kita-Plätzen und Betreuungsschlüsseln einspringen. Er reguliert, wo er sich angeblich heraushält. Doch diese Regulierung wird nicht als politische Entscheidung, sondern als technische Verwaltungsaufgabe behandelt. Lobbys und Interessenverbände versuchen, die Regelungen in die eine oder andere Richtung zu lenken. Aber die Frage, was für eine Gesellschaft wir sein wollen, wird so in 1.000 kleine Stellschrauben zerlegt, über die Experten entscheiden.

      Der zweite Fehler der technokratischen Einhegung ist das Vertrauen, das sie in die Eliten setzt. Schaut man auf die letzten Jahrzehnte, gibt es kaum einen Grund für eine Angst vor der Tyrannei der Mehrheit. Es sind vor allem die Eliten, die für die Fehlentscheidungen der letzten Jahre verantwortlich zeichnen: die Finanzkrise 2008, die desaströse Pandemiepolitik, die vergeigte Energiewende, die schrittweise Deindustrialisierung. An kaum einem Punkt hat eine Mehrheit der Bürger die Politik vor sich hergetrieben.

      Und während diese Fehlentscheidungen die Lebensbedingungen der Vielen verschlechterten, hat die ökonomische Elite von genau dieser Ordnung profitiert. Die Zahl der Milliardäre in Deutschland hat sich seit der Finanzkrise vervierfacht; ihr Gesamtvermögen wuchs allein 2025 inflationsbereinigt um 30 Prozent. Gleichzeitig liegen die Reallöhne noch immer auf dem Niveau von 2019. Ein Fünftel der Bevölkerung lebt in Armut. Nicht die Mehrheit ist eine Gefahr für diese Gesellschaft, sondern es sind die Wenigen an der Spitze, die sich von den Lebensweisen und Bedürfnissen der Vielen entfernt haben.

      Jedes System, das auf die Herrschaft einer kleinen Elite gebaut ist, neigt zur Instabilität, wenn diese Eliten außer Kontrolle geraten. Eine Demokratie, die den politischen Prozess ernst nimmt, hat demgegenüber einen Vorteil: Es reicht, wenn eine andere Gruppe an die Macht kommt. Dafür muss aber möglichst viel innerhalb des Systems zur Disposition stehen. In den vergangenen Jahren war das Gegenteil der Fall.

      In den klassischen Theorien der liberalen Demokratie ist der Einwand seit jeher der Gleiche: Eine unbegrenzte, uneingehegte Demokratie würde zur Tyrannei der Mehrheit führen. Ursprünglich wurde dieses Argument vor allem von den besitzenden Klassen vorgebracht: Die Eigentumsordnung musste dem demokratischen Zugriff entzogen werden, sonst könnten die Menschen noch merken, dass die ungleiche Verteilung der Güter nicht gottgewollt, sondern menschengemacht ist. Heute sind die Ängste unter besitzlosen Linken mindestens genauso verbreitet: Wenn wir wirklich über alles demokratisch entschieden, wären Migranten, Heimatlose, Schutzbedürftige einer rechten Mehrheit ausgeliefert, die mit ihnen machen würde, was sie wolle.
      Doch es gibt zwei Argumente dagegen, ein historisches und ein empirisches. Historisch ist es mindestens übertrieben, von einer Gefahr einer Tyrannei der Mehrheit zu sprechen. In Deutschland geht es dabei meist um die Erfahrung der nationalsozialistischen Gleichschaltung, die nach 1945 ein tiefes Misstrauen gegenüber demokratischen Mehrheiten begründet hat. Doch das Beispiel fußt auf einem falschen Verständnis der historischen Situation. Das Ende der Weimarer Republik lässt sich kaum mit einer außer Kontrolle geratenen Demokratie erklären. Der Druck von rechts und links auf das parlamentarische System war zwar enorm – doch letztlich waren es konservative Eliten, die das System zu Grabe trugen.

      Was die Nationalsozialisten betrieben, war gerade keine Tyrannei der Mehrheit, sondern die Zerstörung der Demokratie durch eine Minderheit, die sich des Staates bemächtigte. Historisch gingen auch die meisten anderen Tyranneien aus nicht-demokratischen Machtergreifungen hervor. Die wirkliche Gefahr liegt eher nicht in zu viel Demokratie, sondern in zu wenig: Ein System, das den Bürgern signalisiert, dass ihre Stimme in den entscheidenden Fragen ohnehin nichts zählt, erzeugt erst die Frustration und Radikalisierung, die es zu verhindern vorgibt.

      Tatsächlich hätte das Mitte-Links-Lager in vielen Feldern wahrscheinlich größere Chancen, seine politischen Ziele durchzusetzen, wenn dem demokratischen Prozess mehr Raum gegeben würde. Eine große Mehrheit der Deutschen befürwortet eine Vermögensteuer, doch seit einem Verfassungsgerichtsurteil von 1995 wird sie nicht mehr erhoben. In Berlin stimmte eine deutliche Mehrheit für die Enteignung großer Wohnungskonzerne, doch das Ergebnis wurde ignoriert und an eine Expertenkommission delegiert. Das Muster ist oft dasselbe: Wo linke Mehrheiten existieren, werden sie entweder nicht abgefragt oder ihre Ergebnisse werden neutralisiert.

      Das Problem der Linken ist also nicht, dass die Bevölkerung zu rechts wäre, sondern dass die liberale Ordnung genau jene demokratischen Wege versperrt, auf denen sie Mehrheiten gewinnen könnte. Natürlich wäre damit zu rechnen, dass in einigen Feldern nicht das Ergebnis stünde, das sich Linke erhoffen. Doch das wäre der Preis dafür, das Politische überhaupt wiederzubeleben. Es ist ein geringer Preis gegenüber einem narkotisierten System.

      Das heißt nicht, dass man alle prozeduralen Sicherungen abschaffen sollte. Aber diese Sicherungen müssen nicht notwendig nicht-majoritär gedacht sein. Im Moment zeigt die Entwicklung in die entgegengesetzte Richtung. Was geschieht, wenn nicht-majoritäre Institutionen die Demokratie im Namen der Demokratie aushebeln, ließ sich im Dezember 2024 in Rumänien beobachten: Drei Tage vor der geplanten Stichwahl annullierte das Verfassungsgericht die erste Runde der Präsidentschaftswahl. Der Grund war eine angebliche Einflussnahme Russlands; belastbare Beweise dafür wurden bis heute nicht vorgelegt. Bei der Wiederholungswahl wurde der rechtsradikale Wahlsieger Călin Georgescu nicht mehr zugelassen. Die anderen Staaten der EU nahmen das kommentarlos hin oder begrüßten es sogar.

      Die „liberalen Demokratien“ werden offenbar illiberaler. Wogegen sich die Linke angesichts dieses autoritären Schwenks wehren müsste, wäre die juristische und exekutive Einschränkung des demokratischen Prozesses. Im Moment geschieht das Gegenteil: Gerade diese Einschränkungen werden als Rettung der Demokratie sakralisiert. Wenn eine Mehrheit in diesem Land eine autoritäre Politik möchte, werden uns keine Gerichte davor retten. Deshalb geht es darum, sicherzustellen, dass der demokratische Prozess ohne große Einschränkungen ablaufen kann und dass es in ihm wirklich um etwas geht.

      Was hieße das konkret? Einige Felder zeichnen sich bereits ab, auf denen eine postliberale Linke sich anders positionieren müsste, als es im gegenwärtigen liberalen Mainstream geschieht. In der Wirtschaftspolitik hieße es, die Frage nach Produktion und Verteilung als genuin politische zu behandeln, statt sie an Märkte und Technokraten zu delegieren. In der Klimapolitik hieße es, Klimaschutz nicht als verfassungsrechtliche Vorgabe vor dem demokratischen Streit zu schützen, sondern als politisches Projekt zu begreifen, das Mehrheiten braucht. In der Migrationspolitik hieße es, die Frage, wer kommen darf und unter welchen Bedingungen, als das zu behandeln, was sie ist: eine der großen politischen Fragen, über die demokratisch entschieden werden muss. In der Familienpolitik hieße es, offen zu benennen, dass eine Gesellschaft ein legitimes Interesse daran hat, wie ihre Mitglieder zusammenleben und füreinander sorgen. In der Außenpolitik hieße es, demokratisch über Krieg und Frieden zu entscheiden, statt solche Fragen in Bündnisverpflichtungen verschwinden zu lassen. Und in der Frage der Rechtsstaatlichkeit hieße es, die Verrechtlichung des Politischen zurückzudrängen und dafür zu sorgen, dass Parlamente wieder über die Dinge entscheiden, die das Leben der Menschen bestimmen.

      Keine dieser Positionen ist ohne Risiko. Wer den demokratischen Prozess stärkt, muss mit Ergebnissen leben, die einem nicht passen. Doch das ist das Wesen der Demokratie: Sie ist die einzige Herrschaftsform, die sich selbst korrigieren kann, ohne sich selbst zu zerstören. Die liberale Einhegung der Demokratie hat genau diese Selbstkorrektur zuletzt immer mehr verhindert. Das Ergebnis ist nicht die Stabilität, die die Liberalen versprochen haben, sondern eine wachsende Instabilität, die den Boden bereitet für jene, die das System als Ganzes ablehnen.

      Linke stehen in Deutschland aktuell vor einer Entscheidung: Wollen sie den Liberalismus verteidigen oder die Demokratie? Die postliberalen Rechten analysieren die Schwächen des liberalen Systems mit einer kaum mehr bekannten Vehemenz, landen aber bei einer autoritären Antwort. Eine postliberale Linke könnte, wenn sie ihre Angst überwindet, eine demokratische Antwort auf die Risse im liberalen System geben. Dafür muss sie eine Frage beantworten: Trauen wir den Menschen zu, sich gemeinsam selbst zu beherrschen? Wenn sie diese Frage emphatisch bejaht, dann unterscheidet sie sich sowohl vom liberalen Mainstream als auch von den autoritären Postliberalen. Das wäre ein Anfang.

    • Voilà l’affirmation centrale de l’auteur Nils Schniederjann qui résume les raisons pour le déclin de l’influence de la gauche parmi les classes populaires (dont moi ;-) ).

      De la politique monétaire à la politique commerciale en passant par la migration, toute une série de questions fondamentales ont été soustraites au processus démocratique ces dernières années pour être confiées aux tribunaux, aux banques centrales et aux institutions européennes.

      Ce n’est pas un hasard si la gauche – de la social-démocratie modérée jusqu’aux franges les plus radicales de gauche, notamment celles engagées dans la lutte pour le climat – a non seulement accepté cette situation, mais l’a souvent saluée. Cela tient à un changement fondamental : une bonne partie de la gauche est devenue libérale. Et, à l’instar des libéraux depuis des siècles, elle a peur du peuple.

      Bref, « Die Linke » ne représente plus le peuple c’est à dire les couches populaires d’Allemagne.

      Il n’y a plus de « travailleurs » parmi les nouveaux membres du parti qui à usurpé le terme « de gauche » ou, pour employer l’expression traditionelle, qui a trahi le projet de gauche proclamé lors de sa fondation en l’an 2007. Vu les personnages principaux derrière la création du nouveau parti Oskar Lafontaine (WASG) et Gregor Gysi (PDS) on aurait pu s’en douter que l’histoire allait finir comme on le voit aujourd’hui.

      Voilà un texte historiographique de l’institution de formation politique de l’état capitaliste à propos du parti Die Linke .
      Etappen der Parteigeschichte der LINKEN | Parteien in Deutschland | bpb.de
      https://www.bpb.de/themen/parteien/parteien-in-deutschland/die-linke/42130/etappen-der-parteigeschichte-der-linken

      On l’y accuse de stalinisme occulte. Le parti accepte ce reproche et refuse alors de défendre l’Union Soviétique historique et son rôle positif pour le mouvement ouvrier mondial. Ses dirigeants préfèrent se plier au discours dominant afin de mieux profiter de leur présence au sein des institutions des états impérialistes allemands et d’Europe.

      J’ai l’impression que le moment est venu de créer un nouveau mouvement « de gauche » qui laisse derrière lui les limitations de la politique opportuniste pratiquée par Die Linke tout en dépassant les limites imposées par les divers dogmes des petits partis « communistes » allemands.

      On a déjà vu pas mal de groupes de gauche non dogmatique (undogmatische Linke") . Pourvu que la prochaine édition ne se dissipe pas comme Projekt Avanti qui n’a apparemment pas réussi tenir bon.

      4.5.2021 TAZ : Die undogmatische Linke
      https://taz.de/Die-undogmatische-Linke-PLATTFORM-FUeR-VERAeNDERUNG/!441219

      Wikipedia nous rappelle plusieurs projets historiques qui ont choisi le terme pour décrire leurs idées.

      Undogmatische Linke
      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undogmatische_Linke

      Don’t do this at home ! ou quelques erreurs à ne pas répéter.

      Seit den 1960er-Jahren galten die linkspolitischen Menschen, die sich nicht in einer Partei organisieren wollten, als der Undogmatischen Linken angehörig, so das 1969 gegründete Sozialistische Büro. Die Undogmatische Linke bezeichnet eine politische und gesellschaftliche Strömung, die sich vom Realsozialismus und besonders in den 70er und 80er Jahren von den Teilen der Linken, die von der sogenannten Stamokap-Theorie des Instituts für Gesellschaftswissenschaften der DDR geprägt waren, abgrenzt. Politische Virulenz besaß dieser Begriff insbesondere bei den Jusos, dem Jugendverband der SPD, in der Zeit der Flügelkämpfe zwischen Reformsozialisten, welche diese Bezeichnung alternativ für sich wählten, und den sogenannten Stamokaps in den 1970er bis 1990er Jahren. Synonym wurde damals auch der Begriff „Demokratische Linke“ genutzt.

      An der Universität Frankfurt war die Undogmatische Linke besonders aktiv und in den 1970er/1980er Jahren zugleich eine studentische Hochschulgruppe, die jahrelang den AStA stellte und gleichsam der offizielle Arm der Sponti-Bewegung war. Im bundesweiten Studierendenstreik (Nov. 1988 – Feb. 1989) war sie als linkspolitische parteiungebundene Hochschulgruppe in Frankfurt/Main aktiv. Erst Ende der 1990er Jahre löste sich die Gruppe auf.

      1989 wurde von zwei autonomen Gruppen in Norddeutschland „Avanti – Projekt undogmatische Linke“ gegründet, eine Organisation, die sich gegen organisatorischen „Autoritarismus“ stellt und der Öffentlichkeit ihre politischen Inhalte näher bringen möchte. Unter den Autonomen folgten in den 1990er Jahren weitere ähnliche Zusammenschlüsse in anderen Regionen. Wahrscheinlich schlossen sich die meisten dieser Zusammenschlüsse später dem Netzwerk Interventionistische Linke an. Dort sind aber nicht allein Autonome und Postautonome organisiert.

      Le prolétariat ne joue plus son rôle d’antagoniste actif de la classe capitaliste. Une nouvelle « gauche » devra alors poser les questions essentielles et palpables pour chacune et chacun qui n’a pas la possibilité d’imposer aux autres le poids de son fardeau. Pour les pauvres il n’y a de salut que dans la solidarité.

      Pourtant cette situation « objective » ne fait pas le sujet révolutionnaire. Donc a0vant la fondation d’un nouveau parti de gauche la tâche préparatoire incontournable sera de distiller le véritable antagoniste à l’alliance des classes nocives au pouvoir.

      #Allemagne #gauche #théorie_politique #capitalisme #révolution

  • Capitalism Won’t Collapse on Its Own -Interview with Vivek Chibber
    https://jacobin.com/2026/05/capitalism-crisis-collapse-socialism-determinism

    Red Dawn, 1984

    Je vous ai toujours dit que j’étais content si « la révolution » n’arrivait pas de mon vivant ;-)

    Voilà pourquoi.

    31.5.2026 by Melissa Naschek - Socialists have long predicted capitalism’s overthrow and replacement by a better system. But do we have any reason to believe capitalism must come to an end?

    On the latest episode of the Jacobin Radio podcast Confronting Capitalism, Melissa Naschek and Vivek Chibber discuss the role of economic and ecological crises in capitalism’s possible demise. Just as it is a mistake to think that capitalism will last forever, it’s also unrealistic to think that it is destined to collapse.

    Confronting Capitalism with Vivek Chibber is produced by Catalyst: A Journal of Theory and Strategy and published by Jacobin. You can listen to the full episode here.

    Melissa Naschek

    When I was coming up on the Left, I heard a lot about Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of “the end of history.” By this, he meant that capitalism was here to stay, and there was nothing anybody could do about it. But I think that changed in the post–Bernie 2016 moment because suddenly there was hope where there hadn’t really been much before. And that brought into play all these other theories that argue the exact opposite: that not only will capitalism end, it actually has to end, that some sort of break is inevitable within capitalism.

    Vivek Chibber

    When Fukuyama wrote his book, there was a sense that “There is no alternative.” That the Soviet Union is gone and the only existing alternative to capitalism, at least in real life, was no longer there. And it looked like there was no other economic system that was possible.

    But we are in a different world today, because even if capitalism’s end is not on the horizon, the form in which capitalism has existed for the last forty years, which is neoliberalism, is in absolute crisis. And certainly once you see that some aspects of the society around you, which seemed unshakable a few years ago, are suddenly up for grabs, and they’re melting and crumbling, it does raise the possibility in your mind that maybe you could be even more ambitious; that maybe you could actually start to think about bringing down capitalism itself.

    Melissa Naschek

    There’s been a consistent strain within Marxism predicting that the end of capitalism is either just around the corner or is destined by “the laws of historical motion” to end. And Karl Marx has tons of quotes that are often used to support this view, one of them being that capitalism creates “its own gravediggers” in the working class.

    Vivek Chibber

    Right. And he also said that there’s a kind of a sequence in history where economic systems come and go. And they fall apart and implode when they start impeding technological progress. So in his language, when the class structure, or the relations of production as he called it, become fetters on the forces of production or in technology, at that moment, these economic systems become unstable.

    Melissa Naschek

    So why do we have any reason to think capitalism might ever come to an end?

    Vivek Chibber

    Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed this idea that it’s not just that capitalism will someday come to an end, but that capitalism is merely the latest economic system in a list of systems that have come to an end. And that there’s a pattern across different economic systems such that when they do fall apart and are followed by a new one, it’s always governed by the same principles. It’s a very powerful theory, right or wrong. It’s one of the most elegant theories social science has ever produced.

    What the theory of historical materialism basically said was that, across history, you have not just one economic system. . . Capitalism hasn’t always existed. It’s a very recent economic system. It really came about in the 1500s and 1600s.

    Melissa Naschek

    Right. And this is an important part of Marx’s theory itself, the fact that capitalism actually has a distinct beginning.

    Vivek Chibber

    Yeah. The idea is it has a birth date and it has an end date as well. And that is an incredibly bracing idea — that it isn’t inevitable. It’s the opposite of Fukuyama. Fukuyama says, “Well, now we are in it for the long run. There was this illusion that there was some alternative to it, but that’s over.”

    What Marx and Engels were saying is that, in fact, every system has a time stamp on it and it’s going to come to an end. Roman slavery came to an end, feudalism came to an end, and capitalism, like them, will come to an end. But they also argue that not only will it come to an end, it’ll do so for the same reasons that slavery ended and that feudalism ended.

    Melissa Naschek

    What does that mean?

    Vivek Chibber

    The theory of historical materialism argues that there is a logic that governs the ebb and flow of economic history.

    So the idea is that there is a continuity in human history, which is that human beings continually develop their technological and economic efficiency. And they do it because it frees them up from labor. It gives them a higher standard of living; they appreciate that higher standard of living, and they appreciate having to work less. Marx and Engels thought this was an inbuilt drive in human nature.

    Now, in any given economic system, the institutions of the economy — such as the class structure, the ways in which commerce is carried out, the ways in which banking or money is organized — all of it is governed by this logic: People will abide by an existing set of institutions as long as it feeds their desire to continue to improve their standards of living.

    And when it ceases to do so, it unleashes a series of crises in that society because people start pushing against the barriers of the existing institutions saying, “This isn’t really working for us anymore.” So slavery at some point became — Marx is ambiguous on this — either unproductive or not sufficiently productive to make people happy.

    Melissa Naschek

    This is the notion of fetters. It’s that barrier that you’re describing.

    Vivek Chibber

    Exactly. And what happens is that because economic institutions are no longer promoting growth, the battle between classes intensifies, because the economic pie isn’t expanding. And because the battle now intensifies, during the course of that battle, people start reaching for alternative ways of organizing institutions. And through some mysterious process, maybe trial and error or maybe through warfare, a new economic system comes about that people find is more congenial to their material interests, to their desires. And that creates a stability.

    How does it make it stable? Well, the ascendant economic system reduces the amount of conflict in society because the new ruling class can now preside over more productive economies and can, through its exploitation of people, also raise their standards of living.

    Melissa Naschek

    Yeah. It sounds like a natural selection argument in that there’s this assumption that people want a better, more productive economy because it’s going to provide them with a higher standard of living. Therefore, the institutions that continue to promote that increasing level of quality of life are going to be selected for.

    Vivek Chibber

    Yeah. And Marx had to marry that to his other proposition, which is that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” So if classes and class struggle are the engine that drives this stuff, but at the same time, it’s this individual desire for improved standards of living, how do the two come together?

    The way they come together is that the new class that comes into power — let’s say, the feudal nobility which came into power after Roman slavery — that new class is going to exploit peasants, just the way the Roman slave owners exploited slaves. But because the economic pie is now expanding faster than it did during Roman times, the peasants and the laboring classes, even though they’re still being exploited, are going to have higher standards of living than the people of the laboring classes had in the preceding mode of production.

    So while exploitation is still going on, the class struggle, through some kind of selectional process, put into place an economic system in which the level of conflict is now reduced. And so you get economic stability. And now this economic system goes on for centuries and centuries until it also starts becoming a kind of a block to further development that unleashes a new intensified cycle of class conflict, at the end of which you stumble into, in some way, a new economic system. And now you have capitalism.

    The claim is, at some point, capitalism will also become a system in which class relations, capital and labor, become obstacles to technological progress and economic growth. And that will unleash class struggle. And through that, you will get the onset of, hopefully, socialism. That was Marx’s idea.

    So the same logic is governing the transversal from one economic system to another across history. And that, Marx said, makes it inevitable. Because every economic system, at some point, is going to become something that is not developing sufficiently fast to abate and to limit conflict. And when it’s unleashed, you get the conditions for a new economic system coming up.

    The generation of Marxists in Marx’s time, in Vladimir Lenin’s time, all the way into the 1940s and ’50s, at least give lip service to the idea that they are aligned with the forward march of history, and therefore they are helping push history faster along these grooves in which it’s already set. That was the idea.

    Melissa Naschek

    So do you think that this theory actually motivated political action by figures like Lenin and other people who were invested in and researching this theory? Does it relate at all to the Russian Revolution or anything like that?

    Vivek Chibber

    Well, it’s a funny thing. When you read deeply into the debates they’re having in the early 1900s and going all the way up until 1917, it doesn’t come up very much.

    Let’s take a caricatured view of this. Suppose Lenin and [Leon] Trotsky are sitting around and they say, “Look, are we going to have this revolution or not?”

    Melissa Naschek

    Lenin and Trotsky have a podcast.

    Vivek Chibber

    Right, so they’re sipping their vodka over the Volga. And in the discussion, Lenin says, “So, Lev, what do you think? Are we going to have this revolution?” And Trotsky says, “I don’t know, sooner or later. I mean, we know it’s going to happen. So why bother so hard? Why do we have to work so hard?”

    But when you look at their debates from 1902 onwards, when the Bolshevik faction is formed and they’re debating the Mensheviks and they’re having all these arguments, it’s all in this context of feeling that, if we get this wrong, we won’t recover. If we don’t build the right party, it won’t work. If we don’t have the right strategy, the right tactics, we’ll be decimated. And once we’re decimated, we won’t get this chance again.

    You don’t get the sense that anybody’s working with a sense of inevitability, right? So in that sense, you don’t see it very much.

    And in fact, what they’re imbued with, I think, is something that’s quite the opposite, which is that here in Russia, we might have a revolution way before we’re supposed to.

    Marx’s theory said that revolutions should occur in the more advanced capitalist countries that are ready economically, with an economic foundation that could be the basis for a viable socialism. Russia was in many ways the last country where that should have happened because it was the most backward country in Europe.

    Now, Marx understood this in his last years and he tried to figure out how the Russian socialists and the anarchists might be able to build on the institutions of a backward Russia, but he never for a moment thought it would be a cakewalk. He knew that the backwardness of the country would be an obstacle.

    What I think was really worrying the Russian Marxists was that, far from being inevitable, they were in a situation where the revolution shouldn’t have happened at all. So if you’re working with a theory of history that says that events are going to move along as predicted, Russia shouldn’t have been in a revolutionary situation to begin with.

    Now, they came up with their theories to explain why that was happening. But for our purposes, were they motivated by this sense of inevitability? I don’t see it. I can’t see it.

    On the other hand, I do think it mattered in one respect, which is that I think that for the leadership of the party, feeling that even while this or that country at this or that moment might be an exception — like Russia was an exception — and that revolutions might occur out of sequence, they could see these as momentary perturbations. That, in the end, Marx basically had it right; that there is going to be this arc in which all the countries fall into line, but he might have gotten the sequence wrong.

    I think that did matter for them to some extent. It didn’t matter in 1917–18. It didn’t matter in 1905, when they were in the throes of revolutions, but it probably mattered to them in between the revolutions.

    There was this period from say 1907 to the 1910s when things looked really bleak in Russia. They’d been defeated in the 1905 revolution. They were discouraged. And, I don’t have direct evidence of this, but you get the sense when you read their letters and their correspondence that they’re feeling, “Yeah, things are bad now. It’s bleak, it’s bad, but we are on the side of history, or history is with us and we just have to hang on. We have to marshal our forces because sooner or later things will come back in line again.”

    Ironically and oddly, I don’t think it mattered to them much in the revolutionary moments when they’re actually organizing themselves. At that moment, they’re overtaken with minutiae — tactical issues, strategic issues, military issues. I think it did matter in between when they were demoralized and you need something to hang on to.

    That, I think, is where a feeling of inevitability to history did have some motivational force for them and probably played a role in their being able to survive through very hard times.

    Melissa Naschek

    You described the theory as “elegant,” but you’ve also expressed some skepticism about it. What are the components of the theory that you think are strong and then where are your criticisms of it?

    Vivek Chibber

    Well, if you just take the theory at its most basic level, I think there’s a plausibility to it.

    At a very basic level, it’s saying human beings are motivated by their material interests, that once they achieve a certain level of development, they’re going to tend to hang on to it, even with classes and class struggle and all that sort of stuff, that therefore there’s a kind of a direction to history.
    Graph representation of total output of the world economy in logarithmic scale.
    Total output of the world economy in logarithmic scale. Data sources: Eurostat, OECD, IMF, and World Bank (2026); Bolt and van Zanden — Maddison Project Database 2023; Maddison Database 2010 — with major processing by Our World in Data.

    If you played human history over again a hundred times, each time the slope of technological development would be positive. It wouldn’t be this loop the loop or a random walk where it develops and it falls back, then it develops and it goes back to zero, things like that. There might be short periods of decline, like there was after the fall of the Roman Empire, but it picks up again and it starts moving forward again. I think that makes sense.

    That’s a very weak thesis, not trivial by any means. But it’s a weak thesis.

    On top of that is a stronger thesis, which is that not only that history moves along a kind of a directional line, but that economic systems come and go precisely when they become unable to keep technological dynamism moving at a certain rate.

    Melissa Naschek

    Right, and this is the part of the theory that really leads to this conclusion that capitalism must have a breaking point.

    Vivek Chibber

    For that to happen, you need two things. Firstly, you need to have empirical evidence that when the Roman Empire fell, it was for this reason, that when feudalism came to an end, it was for this reason. Secondly, you have to show that whatever replaced it, replaced it for that reason. You have to show that it replaced it because of some role that class and class struggle played in it.

    There’s a lot of debate around this. My view is that the evidence for this is very, very weak. I think it’s very hard to show that the Roman Empire fell because it was no longer moving technology forward, or that feudalism fell because it was no longer moving technology forward. It’s also very hard to show that the class conflict that was unleashed at the end of these things was in any way preordained to result in the way that it did. I think it’s perfectly feasible that what replaced the Roman Empire could have been something that kept the same level of economic development for centuries onward.

    So among Marxists and non-Marxists who have paid attention to this theory, myself included, the general idea has been that the strict version of Marx’s account of historical change and historical development is probably not sustainable.

    Now, when we come to the idea of capitalism breaking down, and socialism replacing it, there’s a particular difficulty, which is: Within this idea that capitalism will come to an end when it’s becoming obsolete or when it’s becoming, as Marx said, a fetter on technological development, what is the mechanism by which it’s going to break down, or by which it’s going to be replaced by socialism?

    Melissa Naschek

    And, like you said, this theory provides a very logical flowing answer, which is that it will break down when the institutions that support it are no longer promoting technological development.

    Vivek Chibber

    Right. So now, this is a little bit technical, but let me just lay it out.

    Marx and Marxists say that the economic system will become unstable when the existing property relations — the class structure — become blocks on its further development. The language they use is “fettering,” as in when the relations of production fetter the further development of technology and the productive forces.

    Now, there are a couple of ways in which you can understand what it means for the economic institutions to fetter the further development of technology. One is an absolute sense and one is a relative sense.

    In the absolute sense, technological growth will just stop. This would mean capitalism just kind of breaks down like a car engine breaks down. And when the car engine breaks down, you’ve got no choice but to replace it or rebuild it with something better.

    Now, the other way in which you can understand fettering is a relative sense, which is that there is still positive economic growth and technological development, but an alternative system might be able to do it better.

    Melissa Naschek

    This is sort of like opportunity costs.

    Vivek Chibber

    Yes, exactly. There’s something better that you could have. The grass is greener on the other side. And so that other system becomes attractive.

    Let’s just examine both of these.

    If we look at the first one, which is the idea that capitalism will come to an end because economic growth will stop, not only is there no evidence that that’s ever going to happen, we can’t even devise an economic model that would tell us what that might be.

    There have been, in Marxist economics, some attempts to build a model that would show this breakdown of capitalism. And ironically, they’re called breakdown theories of capitalism.

    A very famous proponent in the 1930s was a guy named Henryk Grossman. And the basic idea was that, for reasons that we don’t have to go into, the amount of surplus and surplus value that economic firms are producing starts being squeezed to the point where the profits that are coming out of production are no longer sufficient to even be reinvestable. And so, capitalists run out of money to reinvest in their production, and at that point, you have the engine breaking down. And workers will essentially say, “Well, listen, the only way to keep this thing going is to, we keep the factories, but under entirely different rules. The rule now is no private property. We’re going to run them under what you might call socialism.”

    Very interesting theory, but the model can easily be shown to be based on outlandishly unreasonable assumptions. And so it didn’t really find much traction.

    And in our historical experience, we’ve also seen that it’s never happened that an economic crisis leads to freezing of economic growth, zero growth.

    In fact, what happens is there are lots of economic crises in capitalism, and those crises are generated by the internal dynamics of capitalism itself. They’re not just accidents. They’re not just exogenous shocks. They’re internal to capitalism.

    But Marx was at pains to show, and there are lots of contemporary economic models that also show, that the crisis is like a virus. It’s not a terminal virus. It doesn’t kill the system. What the crisis does is it roots out all the weak elements in the system. And, like a virus, it has an end date out of which the system emerges stronger and at least viable. So crises come and go. And after each crisis, economic accumulation and profitability and economic growth starts again. It commences again.

    Melissa Naschek

    But listening to you describe this, it does raise the question of why, if capitalism is just going to collapse in on itself, does that mean that it would be replaced by socialism specifically?

    Vivek Chibber

    That’s a separate question. And we can say that that is a further challenge to the theory. And Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg used to say that in these moments of crisis, you shouldn’t assume that it’s going to be replaced by socialism. It could also be replaced by something worse. Their slogan was “socialism or barbarism,” right? But we haven’t even gotten there yet.

    The first question is, is there any reason to think that the system will come to a screeching halt and break down on its own so that you basically are left with an open door to coming up with a new system? And there really isn’t.

    Now, let’s look at a second alternative, which is this relative fettering. That’s certainly feasible. It’s certainly feasible that capitalism can keep chugging along crisis after crisis, but growth can be slow — positive, but slow. And if growth is positive, but slow, you can think of an alternative way of organizing your economy where it will be positive, but fast. So it’ll be preferable to capitalism. That kind of fettering is easily imaginable.

    Now, does that save the idea that the end of capitalism is inevitable?

    I don’t think it does for the following reason: Even if you can imagine a better system, the transition to that system may not be costless.

    So suppose when capitalism is chugging along, but at a slow pace, we talk to all the workers in the general population and we say, “Hey, look, a better system is possible.” And that might be attractive to them. But to get to that other system requires decades of bloodshed, huge military battles, failed revolutions, try and try and try again. Sure, the theory says, at the end of all that, you might end up with socialism, but for a rational person, they might say, “Hey, this could involve three generations of conflict or one generation of very bloody conflict, and I might not make it. Or my family may not make it.” So unless you know that you will be among the winners, why would you undertake all these risks?

    To give you an example, you could say that under Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973–74, they conceived of socialism as an alternative, but they were beaten by a very bloody counterrevolution organized by the CIA and by Augusto Pinochet. And that was enough to actually demoralize and dissuade two generations of Latin American revolutionaries and socialists, that this is not something we can win.

    So even if you can imagine a better system, even if you know that it might be a preferable system, it is by no means clear that the costs of getting there will be such that you’ll find it feasible to take on those costs and to take all those risks. And so there might be this kind of moat that separates your economic system from the alternative one. And you might find that you’re much better off with the certainty of fixing this system, of getting the engine going again, even though it’s not ideal, because at least you’re making ends meet, and at least you’re doing okay for yourself as opposed to being slaughtered or executed or wiped out in a counterrevolutionary coup.

    If that’s the case, the mere possibility of an alternative system does not guarantee that you will end up in that alternative system. It comes down to the organizing, the agency, the strategic vision, and the degree of confidence you’ll have that you can actually achieve it with acceptable costs, with costs that you can actually absorb.

    And if that’s the case, I don’t think there’s much of an argument for the inevitability of socialism or for the inevitability of capitalism’s end.

    All you can say is capitalism becomes vulnerable at certain moments. A door might open up at certain moments, but your ability to take advantage of that vulnerability, your ability to take advantage of the opportunity entirely depends on the balance of forces, on your strategic capacity, on the resources you have available to you. And more often than not, it’s going to be lined up in such a way that it makes more sense not to do it.

    Melissa Naschek

    You mentioned crisis theory and this kind of subsection of the theory called breakdown theory, which predicted the eventual arrival of a crisis so massive that it will end capitalism as the historic mode of production.

    But one of the most important contributions that Marxists have made to political theory is this idea that capitalism is a system that is characterized by recurrent, unavoidable crises. So if we’re rejecting this inevitability thesis about capitalism’s end, are we also challenging that aspect of crisis theory as well?

    Vivek Chibber

    No, and it’s a very good point. What I’m skeptical about is what’s called breakdown theory. And that had a very specific mechanism that we don’t need to get into. It had to do with the rate of profit falling to the point where it doesn’t generate enough revenue, enough surplus value to even be able to fund capital accumulation. We have to separate the fact of crisis from explanations for why it happens.

    One of the great insights that Marxist economics had — and there are versions of Keynesianism and even some versions of mainstream theory that will say this — was to recognize the empirical fact that capitalism systematically has this recurrent vulnerability to economic slowdowns and what we call depressions.

    When Marxists talk about crises, what they really mean is what in everyday parlance we call an economic depression. And capitalism has had economic depressions every few decades for all of its history.

    So when something happens in a recurrent fashion, and we’ve had seven or eight of these in a three hundred year period, it’s a pretty good indication that there is an internal engine to the system that is propelling it into crises at a regular rhythm. That’s an empirical fact.

    Then the question is: Why does it happen? For our purposes in this conversation, we don’t have to land on a particular theory of why it’s happening. What we need to probe is, if it is the case that capitalism does have this tendency toward recurring economic crises, toward depressions, what does it mean for our desire or our ambition toward building socialism?

    There’s this tendency among Marxists and among socialists generally to run together two distinct things, which are economic crises and political crises. The idea is that once you have an economic crisis, it unleashes the political crisis. By political crisis, we mean the breakdown of state order, the breakdown of the army, the breakdown of class rule, and the opening of the door to something new: a new political system, a new form of state, a new form of rule.

    And what I’m saying is that, not only is breakdown theory wrong, we should also be skeptical that the mere fact that there’s going to be an economic depression is going to lead to an alternative political system like socialism or something like that.

    What we’ve seen over the course of capitalist history are two things. Firstly, you’ve had lots and lots of economic crises, and almost never has the economic crisis turned into a deep political crisis. Why? The basic reason is that the crises are always temporary. They last a few years. The longest one has lasted about fifteen years, and that was at the end of the nineteenth century.

    Secondly, because capitalism has the resources for recovery from these crises, it gives people two alternatives. One alternative is you take all those huge risks, leap into the dark, and try to overthrow the system. And we already said how that could actually result in catastrophe for them. The other alternative is you try to cobble together a revived capitalism out of the crisis that allows you to get a job again, that allows you to have housing again, that allows you to get some kind of decent life for yourself again. That’s a much less risky proposition than trying to overthrow capitalism.

    Because of that, ruling classes find that they are able to ride out the crisis and consolidate a new cycle of growth and accumulation inside the same economic and political system. So the economic crisis occurs, but it doesn’t typically unleash a political crisis.

    Well, then what’s the point of having an understanding or recognition of economic crises? Even though the crises don’t automatically open the door to socialism, they do open a door. They do unleash the possibility of intensified conflict, intensified strife. Why? Think of the Great Depression. What happened in the Great Depression? Well, you didn’t really get socialism out of it. What you did get, though, was social democracy.

    All across the developed world, the Great Depression led to huge strikes, huge labor mobilization. That labor mobilization a lot of times had the aspirations of socialism, but states didn’t break down. Remember from our discussion of revolutions, I said, you can’t just make a revolution. Largely revolutionary openings happen. And the classes or the political parties that are organized well enough can take advantage of it.

    Economic crises don’t even create revolutionary situations. They just create political instability. That political instability though, does create an opening for things to happen.

    Typically what’ll happen is you’ll be able to get some kind of advantages for yourself, your labor movement. You’ve been able to set up welfare states. You can set up social democracy, build more unions because people are agitated, they’re angry, and you’re able to take advantage of it. There have been occasions when it went further, like during World War I: there was a deep economic crisis coming out of it, and that did create revolutionary openings.

    The point is there’s a common thread here. Economic crises do create political opportunities. What I’m saying is they don’t have to be revolutionary opportunities, but they are opportunities for other things, like building trade unions, like building the welfare state.

    So when you compare economic tranquility and lots of growth with economic breakdown and economic crisis, that crisis situation is still important for making political gains for the Left, if it’s organized well enough to take advantage of the situation.

    That means that if you’re trying to devise a political theory for yourself, a long-term political strategy, it makes sense to know that there are moments in capitalism’s history when it’s politically weak, and that political weakness arises out of economic weakness. That economic weakness is expressed in moments of crisis.

    So having a theory of crisis, or at least having the expectation of crisis, even though you don’t know what’s driving them, knowing that they occur, gives you a motivation to organize yourself politically so that when that opportunity arises, you can take advantage of it. And for that, it turns out crises are important. A recognition of them is important, even though you reject the idea of an ultimate breakdown of capitalism through the crisis.

    Melissa Naschek

    Has the Left always benefited from economic crises?

    Vivek Chibber

    No, and this is why I raised the point of organization. I’m glad you brought this up.

    Crises create opportunities to change things. Economic crises create opportunities to change things politically. Whoever changes it, though, will be the party, the class, the social force that’s better positioned to do so.

    So if the Left and the trade unions are not well organized, in moments of economic crisis, it’s a huge opportunity for the Right. It’s a huge opportunity for capital. Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Now, he wasn’t a socialist. He wasn’t saying it from the standpoint of socialism. He was saying it as a representative of the ruling order.

    When a crisis comes, for them, it means they can take more away from unions, from redistributive programs, from social programs. They can actually cut them down saying, “Hey, we don’t have the money for anything.”

    Melissa Naschek

    Right, because as much as it’s a political opportunity, it’s a political opportunity for both sides.

    Vivek Chibber

    Exactly, for both sides. That’s why for the Left, it’s a bad sign if the crisis is the first time you’ve noticed that we should get our act together, because by that time, it’s too late. What you have to be doing is building your organizational capacity in between the crises.

    This is why we’ve been saying, and the current Bernie left has been saying, nothing is going to move forward until you have a well-organized working class, a well-organized labor movement, because those are your cavalry. Those are the forces that are actually going to be able to take advantage of economic opportunities when they present themselves, and if you don’t do it, the other side will.

    Melissa Naschek

    You’re arguing that crises do not automatically mean the end of capitalism, but for the most part, we’re talking about economic crises. There’s a whole other realm of crisis that we haven’t talked about, which is environmental crisis and the current climate apocalypse that’s hanging over us. Doesn’t that mean that capitalism will have to end in order to stave off the climate crisis?

    Vivek Chibber

    I don’t think so. I wish. I would like to be able to say that the impending climate crisis will motivate people to reach for another system or to say we’ve had it with capitalism, because capitalism might actually end up undermining humanity itself.

    Melissa Naschek

    I think there are people who have been radicalized basically on those grounds.

    Vivek Chibber

    There’s no doubt about it. And let me just say, I think they’re right that capitalism is running humanity into the ground, and it is destroying the environment, and it is generating climate change. But the basic problem still remains. And in many ways, it’s even worse when it comes to the climate crisis.

    The first problem is this: If you’re actually going to say, “The climate crisis is so bad that I want to now fight for a different system,” the issue is that it’s a question of time horizons.

    Even at its worst, the climate crisis is going to unfold over the course of decades, but a revolutionary upsurge to try to end capitalism will unfold over the course of a few months and years. Now, remember all the costs, all the risks, all the bloodshed that could come with that.

    So if you’re going to say, “Well, the climate crisis is the reason I’m going to fight for socialism,” most people are going to say, “Look, if I fight for that socialism now, I’m going to end up dead now. Whereas I know that even if climate change keeps unfolding, it’s going to be generation, two generations, three generations.”

    Even if you think it’s just a couple of decades away, it still doesn’t change anything. The one process is unfolding at a much slower pace than the other process — the second process being trying to overthrow capitalism. And so there are two costs. One cost, which is incremental, slow, and potentially absorbable. The other cost that’s immediate and catastrophic. A reasonable person is going to say, “I will opt for the longer, safer route.”

    Now comes a second point, which is that even while capitalism is destroying the environment, it is also generating technological change internally that is slowing down the pace of climate change. Or if it’s not now, it could.

    Suppose you have something like the green transition. The green transition is not a socialist program. It is a social democratic program that keeps private property intact. But if it’s actually a transition, meaning there’s going to be a transition to an environmentally sustainable capitalism. Well, then there’s even less reason to want socialism.

    Consider that people will already say, “I’m not going to put my life at risk or my well-being at risk right now for something like the fight for socialism when the alternative to it involves much slower, absorbable costs.” And then, when you say to them, “Within eight or ten years, we might actually be able to reform capitalism to the point where it becomes environmentally sustainable,” now there’s even less reason for them to opt for the fight for socialism.

    Melissa Naschek

    I imagine that even if there are capitalists who don’t support any changes [toward a green transition], in theory, everybody would like to be on a habitable planet, right?

    Vivek Chibber

    Well, capitalists just want to make a profit. And if they can make profits through environmentally sustainable enterprises, they have no problem with that. So the only question is, can capitalist technological change generate the sorts of technologies that will be less destructive of the environment or even neutral with respect to the environment? We don’t know. We honestly don’t know.

    And this is why a lot of climate catastrophism turns people off because it’s telling them, “There’s nothing you can do. You’re going to die,” which people kind of shrug and go, “Well, what’s the point then?” They throw up their hands, and say, “Well what can I do?”

    And the other thing is that, before our eyes, there are enormous technological changes taking place that are having an effect in slowing down the rate and the pace of climate destruction. And that is going to have an effect on people’s willingness to take up these enormously costly political ventures, like trying to bring about socialism.

    So that means then, that I think climate change should be one of the things that goes into a socialist program, but it is not going to be a magic wand. It’s not going to be something that you say, “Look, dude, unless you do this right now, we’re all going to die,” because that catastrophist version of climate change is paralyzing.

    Melissa Naschek

    Yeah. I think it also ignores a key component of what the Marxist argument has always been for socialism, which is that the reason that a socialist argument can be persuasive in the first place is because people’s daily experience is of being exploited and oppressed, and of their quality of life and their freedom basically being taken away by their boss. So it’s not like you need to add on this other element of, “Oh, by the way, you’re probably going to die in thirty years.” The point is that people are suffering under the system now. People are already in pain now. And so that is the basis for organizing.

    Vivek Chibber

    One hundred percent. I agree. I don’t think they need an additional motivation. What we need is to take the level of unhappiness and frustration and anxiety they have now already without climate change considerations and turn it into a material force for them.

    But my point is, I think climate change . . . of course, we all agree it’s very important. And we probably have to acknowledge that it is motivating a lot of people to become politically active, but it is not going to be this elixir that induces people or persuades them to take the sorts of risks or incur the kinds of costs that normally they would be unwilling to do. And in fact, I really think that because of the pace at which it’s unfolding, everybody’s automatic reaction is, ‘Well, that’s down the road. What I’ve got to worry about is the here and now.’

    All of which means that the hard, everyday work of organizing people, getting them together, getting them into unions, getting them to a political party, making them more inclined to fight is something that’ll be aided and abetted by the anxieties around climate change, but it won’t give us a trump card where we can dispense with all this hard work.

    Melissa Naschek

    I think you’ve put a pretty good nail in the coffin for these “inevitablist” arguments about capitalism. Do you think that this will serve as a call to action or do you think that potentially it’s a bit discouraging to hear that there’s nothing in the system that will end capitalism for us?

    Vivek Chibber

    Let me go back to what I said about the Russian revolutionaries, although it equally applies the Vietnamese and the Chinese, which is that, when you go back and you look at them in the historical record, you don’t find much evidence that this inevitablist, deterministic account of history really is what kept them going. In moments of despair, I think it did have something for them, as I said earlier, but really what it was, was peasants wanting lower rents, sharecroppers wanting better deals for themselves, workers wanting to take over their factories and lead better lives for themselves. It had to do with the everyday experiences of being exploited, the everyday experiences of being oppressed.

    Now, I think for the leadership and the cadre that sit around and think in big ideas and big terms and try to devise strategy, it was there, it was somewhere. But suppose you took it all away and you told them what Marx said in the manifesto: history is just a history of class struggle. That’s all. It’s just class struggle and there’s no guarantees. Maybe you’ll win, maybe you’ll lose. Would that have had the effect of making them go, “Well, now I don’t want to be part of this?” Absolutely not. There’s no reason for that.

    So my view is that if you take away the sense of inevitability, the determinism, it probably has an effect around the edges for some people, no doubt about it. But it was always massively outweighed by other considerations anyway, if we’re talking about people’s motivations.

    If we’re worried about people losing force, losing their motivation to struggle, if you tell them, “Hey, it’s not guaranteed,” I don’t think that’s much of a concern because when you’re actually in the thick of a social movement, you’re not ever going to say, “I’m immortal. I’m not going to die. I’m going to walk into these bullets because I’m going to win anyway.” You fight the way you fight.

    So is it possible that capitalism could go on forever? Well, I don’t know about forever. That’s a long time. But for the next few generations, absolutely.

    Capitalism has shown itself to be an incredibly resilient system. There’s no sign whatsoever that it’s losing its dynamism per se. It’s still the most dynamic system we’ve ever seen. It goes through ups and downs. We’ve gone through a particularly sluggish couple of decades recently, but that’s “sluggishness” compared to the previous decades. That sluggishness has still allowed standards of living to still generally go up even though the distribution has been bad. There’s no reason to think that’s going to end anytime soon.

    That means that fighting for a transition to socialism is up to us. It comes down to: Can you take advantage of openings? Will you be well-organized when the economic crisis comes? Will you be able to draw people to your program? Will you be able to inspire them and give them a sense that we could win without having these backroom guarantees that the inevitability theories provided?

    If you can do that work, if you can organize well enough, if you can inspire people, if you can give them a model of socialism that they find appealing, and you can develop a strategy that they think is a winnable strategy so they won’t all get decimated, then yeah, I think you could win. And I don’t think you need a theory of inevitability to come out on the other end of it.

    Melissa Naschek

    So what you’re saying is there’s no guarantees?

    Vivek Chibber

    Exactly. I think what we have is a “Marxism without guarantees” or a “socialism without guarantees.” And that’s fine. That’s what history is.

    #capitalisme #crise #économie #marxisme #révolution

  • Global GDP over the long run
    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run?yScale=log&time=1920..latest

    Le développememt économique et la consommation de resssurces qui va avec suit un itinéraire qui arrivera bientôt à sa fin. Ce sera le moment quand le capitalisme ne sera plus la forme la plus efficace et humaine de société et trouvera sa fin aussi . Il faut préparer la société qui viendra après et réunir les forces qui l’imposeront.

    1920 - 2024

    1 - 2024

    L’an 1 correspond à l’an 27 de l’empire romain qui ne perdra son élan que +/- 400 ans plus tard. En Chine l’empire des bureaucrates et soldats a 221 ans et continuera à exploiter ses paysans encore pendant 1912 ans. Pendant tout ce temps le progrès sera lent quoique rythmé par les sursauts des révoltes et révolutions.

    Les derniers 150 ans de notre époque par cintre constituent l’ère des grands progrès scientifiques et industriels qui font exploser le nombre d’êtres humains d’un et demi à à huit milliards, mais ce chifre ne sera pas maintenu. Ceci n’est pas une mauvaise chose en soi mais va á l’encontre du besoin de croissance du capitalisme.

    Les acteurs principaux du système capitaliste ne partiront pas sans avoir essayé de s’enrichir dans le contexte du déclin. En ce moment des conflits en sont la conséquence qui échapperont à la logique connue de l’époque de la montée de l’impérialisme. La déstruction de l’Iraq, de la Lybie, de la Syrie, du Liban et de l’Ukraine sont l’expression de ce développement.

    Nous nous trouvons donc au début de la troisième et dernière guerre mondiale à durée encore inconnue.

    Ne laissons pas agir sans contrepoids les forces du déclin capitaliste Formons nos bataillons qui constitueront le noyau de la société de l’avenir, les armées du nouveau monde.

    #histoire #économie #révolution

  • Posse um Platz der Märzrevolution: Amtsblatt streicht Revolution
    https://taz.de/Posse-um-Platz-der-Maerzrevolution/!6183597


    Da ist ja ein Platz ! Und einer mit Namen ! Und mit #Revolution, boah !

    3.6.2026 von Uwe Rada - Warum wird ein Platz nicht ausgeschildert, obwohl es ihn gibt? Diese Frage der Berliner Geschichtswerkstatt muss das Verwaltungsgericht beantworten.

    Auf Google Maps gibt es ihn. Etwas eingeklemmt zwischen Humboldt-Universität, Gorki-Theater und Neuer Wache ist er verzeichnet: der Platz der Märzrevolution.

    Die prominente Lage in der Berliner Mitte verdankt der Platz der ersten Sitzung der Preußischen Nationalversammlung. Sie tagte 1848 in der ehemaligen Singakademie, seit 1952 Spielstätte des Maxim-Gorki-Theaters.

    In den digitalen Raum hat es der Platz der Märzrevolution also geschafft, und auch auf den analogen Stadtplänen ist er eingetragen. Nur die letzte Weihe, die verweigert ihm das Bezirksamt Mitte. Seit der Umbenennung am 18. März 1998, dem 150. Jahrestag der Märzrevolution, wartet der Platz auf sein Platzschild.

    Nun sind 28 Jahre im Berliner Verwaltungshandeln bekanntlich ein Wimpernschlag. Eine solche Interpretation würde vielleicht sogar auch Jürgen Karwelat von der Berliner Geschichtswerkstatt nicht bestreiten. Zusammen mit der „Aktion 18. März“ hatte er sich seinerzeit dafür eingesetzt, dass die immer etwas jenseits des offiziellen Erinnerns laufende Deutsche Revolution im Stadtbild sichtbar wird.

    28 Jahre im Berliner Verwaltungshandeln sind bekanntlich ein Wimpernschlag

    Außer dem Platz des 18. März auf der Westseite des Brandenburger Tors hat sich dabei bislang aber nicht viel getan. Nun freilich besteht Hoffnung. Die Berliner Geschichtswerkstatt hat den Bezirk Mitte vor Gericht gezerrt. Hauptpunkt der Anklage: Das Bezirksamt habe versucht, „den Platz der Märzrevolution am Maxim-Gorki-Theater verschwinden zu lassen“. Am Dienstag kommt es laut Angabe der Geschichtswerkstatt zu einem mündlichen Verhandlungstermin.

    Platz frei für das Nichts

    Anlass der Klage war eine Mitteilung des Bezirks im Amtsblatt vom 11. April 2025. Darin habe der Bezirk erklärt, dass sich das Problem mit der Platzbenennung erledigt habe, teilt die Geschichtswerkstatt in einer Presseerklärung mit. Denn es gebe den Platz nicht, an der besagten Stelle sei nie ein Platz gestaltet worden.

    Sollte das Gericht dieser Argumentation folgen, wäre Berlin auf einen Schlag fast all seine Probleme los. Beispielsweise könnte der Senat auf dem ehemaligen Flughafen Tegel eine große Waldfläche pflanzen lassen, ohne dafür Entschädigung zahlen zu müssen. Denn die Urban Tech Republic, die dort entstehen sollte, gibt es nicht, weil sie bislang nicht fertig wurde.

    In Pankow wiederum könnte Europas größer Wildpark für Kreuzkröten entstehen – und Möbelkönig Kurt Krieger wäre machtlos. Denn das Pankower Tor, das dort entstehen soll …? Eben, gibbet nich!

    Aber kommt frech sein wirklich durch? Bislang anscheinend schon. Schon 2008 beklagte Karwelat in einem Gastbeitrag in der taz die Untätigkeit des Bezirks. Dabei waren bereits zwei Platzschilder angefertigt worden. Doch die waren auf kuriose Weise verschwunden. Schon damals stellte Karwelat deshalb die revolutionäre Forderung auf, ein neues Schild fertigen zu lassen. Und der Bezirk? Eben! Wimpernschlag!

    Aber so ist das vielleicht mit den Deutschen und ihren Revolutionen. Der eine (Lenin) meinte, das werde ohnehin nie was: „Wenn diese Deutschen einen Bahnhof stürmen wollen“, soll er gesagt haben, „kaufen die sich noch eine Bahnsteigkarte!“

    Andere hoffen auf ein Berliner Verwaltungsgericht.

    Wie wär’s denn damit: Den 3D-Drucker anwerfen, Platzschild drucken und selbst anbringen?

    Und am nächsten Tag mit dem Recht argumentieren, das noch jede Revolution ausgebremst hat – dem Gewohnheitsrecht.

    #Berlin #Mitte #Platz_der_Märzrevolution #Straßenumbenennung #Verwaltung #Revolution #1848

  • La Reconstruction Noire comme guerre de classe. Du Bois, le marxisme et la révolution - Contretemps
    https://www.contretemps.eu/du-bois-black-reconstruction-marxisme-revolution-racisme
    https://coucou.contretemps.eu/wp-content/uploads/Reconstruction-Congregation.jpg

    Le chef d’œuvre de W. E. B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880, publié en 1935, mérite de figurer sur une étagère à côté d’autres classiques modernes, tels que l’Histoire de la révolution russe de Léon Trotsky, Les Jacobins noirs de C. L. R. James, La révolution française de Georges Lefebvre et Le dix-huit brumaire de Louis Bonaparte de Karl Marx. Malheureusement, les spécialistes des #révolutions n’ont généralement pas considéré la #Guerre_de_Sécession comme l’une des grandes révolutions sociales de l’ère moderne, au même titre que les révolutions française, russe et chinoise. 

    En fait, de nombreux lecteurs considèrent le livre de Du Bois de manière beaucoup plus étroite, comme une réponse aux histoires suprémacistes blanches de l’ère de la Reconstruction (1865-76) et, plus particulièrement, comme une défense du rôle des politiciens afro-américains – et des électeurs noirs qui les ont élus – dans les gouvernements des États du Sud de l’époque. Du Bois présente effectivement une telle défense, mais Black Reconstruction offre beaucoup, beaucoup plus que cela. 

    Black Reconstruction n’est pas seulement un ouvrage historique de grande envergure, mais aussi un ouvrage fermement ancré dans la tradition marxiste. Du Bois réinterprète la guerre civile comme une révolution sociale et politique « par le bas » – une révolution ouvrière – qui a entraîné le renversement de l’esclavage et de l’État confédéré, ouvrant ainsi la porte à une démocratie interraciale dans le Sud. Le livre réinterprète ensuite le renversement ultérieur de cette démocratie comme une contre-révolution de classe qui a détruit la possibilité de liberté pour la moitié de la classe ouvrière du Sud et a imposé une « dictature du capital » qui a entraîné « une exploitation du travail sans précédent dans les temps modernes « [2].

  • Zohran Mamdani and the Contradiction of Democratic Socialism
    https://jacobin.com/2026/04/mamdani-dsa-democratic-socialism-capitalism

    À propos de la vérité dans le discour et les décisions politiques des socialistes ocvupant des postes de dirigeant dams les sociétés capitalistes

    27.4.2026 by Peter Frase - What happens when a DSA politician takes charge of the largest city in the United States? Zohran Mamdani’s early record is filled with successes, but also evidence of the contradictions between socialist politics and governing the capitalist state.

    As Zohran Mamdani passes one hundred days as the mayor of New York City, we are being offered numerous retrospectives of his early returns. Some will seek to grade his policy work and evaluate his success in enacting his agenda. Others will assess the state of his political alliances within government and without. The more ideological balance sheets will seek to match up his actions to his own rhetoric and that of the socialist movement that put him in office.

    Another way to view all these aspects is from the vantage point of the contradiction that Mayor Mamdani represents. That is, a contradiction in the properly dialectical Marxist sense: an antagonism that cannot be resolved without overcoming the larger system that gives rise to it, such as that between capital and labor. In this case, the contradiction is between Mamdani as a product of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), an organization at least nominally aiming to overturn the capitalist mode of production, and Mamdani as a politician attempting to operate the machinery of the capitalist state apparatus.

    Even before his victory, an intra-left battle line had been drawn between two different views on how to relate to a Mamdani administration. This division can be seen as a reflection of the contradiction just described. On one side are those who see the task of DSA as defending Mamdani’s policy agenda and building the base of popular support for it. On the other are those more concerned with calling out compromises or betrayals that separate the new mayor’s actions in power from the principles of a democratic socialist organization.

    This tension appears wherever socialist parties manage to elect their members to bourgeois governments and has historically often led to conflict between the “parliamentary party” and the mass membership base. DSA itself has already wrestled with the contradiction with respect to its other officials in various councils and legislatures. But the magnitude of the disputes have heightened now that a socialist holds executive rather than just legislative office in the country’s largest city, tasked not merely with passing laws but with managing the bureaucracy of government itself.

    Moreover, Mamdani, unlike some other prominent elected officials like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is a true “DSA elected.” That is, he developed politically in substantial part through his organizing with DSA, was brought into the state assembly on a slate backed by its political leadership and volunteer power, and became mayor through a campaign that, while it eventually assembled a broad progressive coalition, was initiated and led by DSA.

    Outsiders often fail to understand the raucous internal culture of DSA, which is quite unlike most other major political institutions in American life. It is intensely democratic, with leadership, endorsements, and campaigns subject to the votes of and consultations with the full membership, which now numbers over one hundred thousand nationwide. And because the organization is funded almost entirely by its members’ dues, this democracy is truly meaningful and not subject to the veto of rich funders or a nonprofit board of directors. Moreover, DSA’s stated principles are so open-ended and broad that they can sustain an organization that attracts everyone from social democrats to communists and even anarchists.

    Thus it is important, and indeed inevitable, that DSA’s membership will debate the right balance between criticizing the mayor and acting as his foot soldiers. The resulting dispute, however, often has a rigid, sterile quality, with each side caricaturing the other and reducing themselves to caricature in turn.

    From one side you get the argument that criticizing our own elected officials is simply a disorganizing sectarianism. As the New York City DSA leader Álvaro López puts it, “we need to get away from a ‘holding them accountable’ framework toward a ‘building power’ framework.” Seemingly, in this conception, “building power” is conceived as creating a base of organizers who can win elections for left candidates and then continue organizing in the service of the electeds’ policy agenda.

    Opposed to López’s perspective are those who are suspicious of the corruptions of power and of the ease with which individual politicians can be co-opted. Within DSA, this tendency has manifested in periodic campaigns to censure or even expel figures like Jamaal Bowman and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for public acts that directly contradict the stated positions of the organization.

    We need to break through this repetitive debate by treating it as a true contradiction and work through the ways that this contradiction has played out in the mayor’s early term. Doing so will allow us to develop ideas about how DSA and the Mamdani administration can maintain a contradictory unity, operating independently while avoiding direct opposition.

    My approach to the Zohran-DSA contradiction is to view it through the lens of revolutionary honesty. It is Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the Communist Manifesto who proclaim that “the Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” To obfuscate or soften our positions for immediate advantage would be, in this view, a betrayal of the revolution.

    In a similar vein, socialists love to quote the Guinean socialist leader Amílcar Cabral, who told his party members in 1965: “Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories.” It’s a compelling call to revolutionary honesty, to trusting the masses rather than thinking the difficult realities of revolution need to be hidden or sugarcoated.

    Naturally, on some level there will always be competing views on what the truth of any political situation actually is, which is why serious political debate is necessary. But in politics, there is a particular pressure to say things that we know aren’t quite true or do things that we know contradict our stated vision and objective. This is the kind of political falsehood I refer to.

    In that sense, truth-telling is an appealing dictum, particularly in contrast to the disingenuous character of so much politics. And so we might apply it directly to the situation we face now. Can DSA be honest? Can Zohran Mamdani? What are the conditions in which this becomes possible?

    It might be tempting to deploy the above quotes in a “holding accountable” manner, taking every opportunity to call out DSA electeds for soft-pedaling the true aims of the revolution. The problem with this, however, is that Amílcar Cabral was confronting a rather different situation than Zohran Mamdani, one that faced very different contradictions.

    As the leader of a revolutionary army and government, he could view the totality of his politics through a lens of revolutionary honesty. Zohran, if he wants to succeed as mayor, will at times find it necessary to tell lies and claim easy victories. The question is whether we, as socialists who ultimately want him to succeed, can defend our own ability to be politically principled and clear-eyed about strategic realities.

    By stepping into bourgeois elected office, and into responsibility for managing the largest city in the United States, Mamdani finds himself caught between two projects: that of managing capitalism and that of overturning it. That contradiction is structural, and it is not a property of either his policy agenda or his personal beliefs. The question is whether the movement that elected him will manage the contradiction or be torn apart by it.

    The Mamdani project (and DSA’s electoral project more generally) is predicated on the idea that it is possible for an elected socialist not merely to serve as a tribune of the Left but to govern effectively and deliver tangible improvements to the life of the city’s working class. This entails working with various political and economic actors on their own conventionally capitalist terms. That means balancing the budget, navigating the bond market, and facing down an antagonistic federal government, a centrist governor, and a council speaker hostile to much of the mayor’s agenda, among other things.

    But another, perhaps even greater obstacle emanates from within the city government itself. New York, like virtually all major US cities, has in essence two governments: the civilian bureaucracy overseen by the mayor, and the New York Police Department. As Stuart Schrader explains in his recently released Blue Power, police, through their unions, have “built a political movement that made cops untouchable,” able to “strong-arm local leaders and nullify attempts at public oversight.” And these police departments are reliable allies of the forces of urban capital, especially finance and real estate, which prefer them to the more democratically accountable parts of the state. It is to this particular struggle that we now turn.

    Mamdani’s relationship with the New York Police Department was always bound to be a central obstacle to the objectives of his administration. His choice to retain Jessica Tisch, daughter of a billionaire family, as police commissioner was perceived by many as an attempt to reassure ruling-class forces in NYC, and it provoked criticism from much of his base. But it can also be seen as his attempt to deal strategically with something of an impossible situation.

    While the cops nominally answer to the mayor, the reality is quite a bit more complicated. As in many big cities, the NYPD — with its 33,000 officers and $6.4 billion budget — represents an independent base of power, one that is in some ways more powerful than the mayor’s office itself. The bloated nature of urban police departments, alongside the neoliberal hollowing out of the civilian state, means that armed agents of the state are woven into the operation of society in all kinds of ways — not only in high-profile situations like mental health crises, where Mamdani has argued for replacing them with unarmed specialists, but even in mundane things like assisting stranded motorists, administering parades, and filling out paperwork after a burglary.

    That this is no way to run a healthy society doesn’t mean you can just rip the cops out of these processes all at once without creating disorder, and as a result they have the ability to undermine the livability of the city and therefore the legitimacy of the mayor. This is what happened during the mayoralty of Bill de Blasio, who provoked open revolt from the police — to the point that they even publicly threatened his daughter — even while failing to meaningfully reform them, and this should stand as a cautionary example. It is what makes their power so difficult to challenge, as calls to defund the police are easy to spin as a deepening of austerity rather than a redirection of government toward human needs.

    In light of all this, the identity of the police commissioner becomes a fraught matter. You could appoint Angela Davis to the position, and all that would result is a complete loss of whatever control you might have over the department; the best scenario at the outset of Mamdani’s regime was probably someone who could command the loyalty of the department without doing too much to actively undermine the mayor.

    There may have been better options than Tisch — journalist Spencer Ackerman, for example, suggested reaching into the ranks of South Asian officers, one section of cops who do broadly support Mamdani. But breaking the structural power of the NYPD is a long-term project that can’t be resolved by picking the right figurehead.

    Mamdani is surely aware of this dynamic, and his proposal for a Department of Community Safety can be understood as another road to defunding, as it would reassign tasks such as mental health crisis response to unarmed civilian employees. But “defund the police” didn’t fail just because it chose the wrong slogan. Even if police will sometimes claim to be eager to shed some of their non-core duties, as Mamdani regularly cites for rhetorical effect, left unsaid is that the cops don’t intend this to accompany a commensurate reduction in their budget and head count.

    Progress on the Department of Community Safety has been slow in the early going. Rather than the original proposal for a department with a billion-dollar budget, which would require city council legislation, he has opted for a smaller Office of Community Safety operating within the mayor’s office. This did not come about until March, even after the January police shooting of a young man having a mental health emergency, the very situation Mamdani had pledged to prevent.

    While it’s impossible to know what has happened behind the scenes, the scale and timing of the office’s rollout suggests the delicate balance of power not just with the city council but with Tisch and the NYPD leadership. Tisch did not attend the launch press conference and has been evasive about her support for the larger department proposal.

    She has also stalled another Mamdani promise: the disbanding of the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group, notorious for its violent responses to political protest. It was only on April 9, as his first one hundred days in office ended, that the mayor first broached the possibility of overruling the commissioner if the two could not come to an agreement on the issue. This again suggests a complex power struggle unfolding behind the scenes.

    Under such conditions, what does revolutionary honesty demand of us? In the simplest terms, we can simply continue to demand Mamdani’s original platform. But we can also go beyond it, to a more capacious form of abolitionism that envisions the sort of broad dismantling of carceral institutions that briefly came to prominence after the George Floyd rebellion of 2020. This shouldn’t take the form of simply demanding a maximalist program from Mamdani, since he is structurally unable to achieve it even if he wants to. But neither should we make a virtue of necessity and pretend that the compromises that must be struck with the Blue Power are anything but that.

    A second theme of the Mamdani mayoralty is its relationship to other politicians and branches of government. Many feared that the far-right Trump administration would extend its string of attacks on big cities to New York, whether by denying federal funds or by sending in an invasion of immigration enforcement raids in the manner of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis. This has mostly been forestalled for now, whether because of Mamdani’s apparent ability to personally charm the president, the defeat of the regime on the streets of Minneapolis, or the distraction of the numerous crises into which the White House has recklessly plunged the country.

    Attention has thus focused on Mamdani’s dealings with politicians on the city and state levels. Most significant is his, and DSA’s, relationship to Governor Kathy Hochul. Hochul is a pro-corporate centrist and has habitually blocked the Left’s agenda in the state. In particular, she has opposed one of the mayor’s central proposals: raising taxes on the wealthy to close a budget gap and preserve public services. And yet after barely a month in office, and despite having a primary opponent to her left (he would later drop out), Mamdani endorsed Hochul for reelection.

    Strategically, the move is understandable; Hochul is very likely to win, and Mamdani needs her cooperation to raise taxes on the rich and fund his agenda. In an article in the Nation, he defended his move by speaking of Hochul as “someone willing to engage in an honest dialogue that leads to results” and the Democratic Party as a “big tent” that “channels conflict toward progress.” He called Hochul, a creature of the Democratic establishment that blocked progressive change for years, someone who “believe[s] in transformation.” To whatever extent these phrases have any content, they certainly seem jarring. Revolutionary honesty, it is not.

    There are also strategic critiques, of course, though these are difficult to adjudicate from the outside. Was the endorsement necessary? What, concretely, did Mamdani get from it? Can this move be credited for the governor’s tentative recent move toward taxing the rich, in the form of a limited tax on high-value second homes? There was also the peculiarity of his timing — many months before the primary election and in the midst of a nurses’ strike that Mamdani ostensibly supported and Hochul was attempting to break. But all of this is secondary to the basic incompatibility between the principles of a socialist politics and the substance of what Mamdani decided he was compelled to say.

    Mamdani’s move immediately posed a challenge for his socialist base, both in the form of his fellow elected officials and the rank-and-file base of the Democratic Socialists of America. And indeed, the response they showed is encouraging, as an example of the possibility of remaining honest even when one component of your political project feels structurally compelled to dishonesty.

    In the immediate aftermath of the endorsement, socialist State Senator Jabari Brisport made a statement that, while not naming Mamdani, was unmistakable in its target: Hochul, he said, was “by billionaires, for billionaires,” and “no politician will ever wield enough leverage to change that.” To underscore his point, he went on to declare “our movement is bigger than any one decision by any individual” and endorsed Hochul’s primary opponent, Antonio Delgado.

    NYC-DSA, for its part, was a bit more circumspect, but demonstrated independence in its own way. Its statement, presented as a direct response to Mamdani’s endorsement, does not criticize Mamdani directly, to the chagrin of some members. But it does say that the organization “does not believe that Governor Kathy Hochul has risen to meet this moment” and goes on to underscore that “Mayor Mamdani has been clear that the Governor must tax the rich” and that DSA “will work to make sure she meets that demand.” Even if a bit evasive about the meaning of the endorsement itself, this rhetoric at least establishes that the organization has priorities that are separable from and not dependent on the mayor.

    This positions DSA as a force that will fight for the substantive platform Mamdani ran on, and not as an army that the mayor can call into whatever battle he chooses. This is important, and indeed the relationship it discloses may be the key to the success of the entire socialist electoral project. It recalls the moment when Hochul, having belatedly endorsed Mamdani before the election, faced a rally crowd chanting “Tax the rich” during her speech.

    The chanting was a fleeting, cathartic thing, but it stands in for something more profound, something that Mamdani and all socialist politicians should welcome. It represents the autonomous reality of masses in motion, existing prior to and apart from elected leaders. That autonomy is ultimately the source of strength of the politicians themselves. It allows Mamdani to say to Hochul, “You see, this is what brought me here, and not only can you not control it, but I can’t control it either.” Genuine mass politics tells the truth and demands what its wants, and it is not subject to the strategic considerations of a politician within the bourgeois state.

    Alongside all these bigger struggles, there has of course been the steady stream of news coverage and social media chatter, reacting to various statements made or positions taken by Mamdani and those around him. This is where the question of honesty comes up in the most obvious way. Sometimes it’s the tabloid press trying to tie Mamdani to DSA positions that they expect to be unpopular. Other times it’s DSA members and other leftists expressing alarm at Mamdani for what they perceive to be excessive concessions to those right-wing critics, whether it’s his disavowal of the phrase “Globalize the intifada” or his occasional posts in praise of the NYPD.

    This is also an area where the contradiction between the needs of the movement and the exigencies of governing can play out in the most straightforward way. Maybe Mamdani won’t say “Globalize the intifada” (which he says he never did anyway), but we can. He may not be able to call the cops racist or call for a radical restructuring of the NYPD, even if he might agree on some level. But we can, and we must. Leave the cheerleading to the mayor’s office; we can continue to tell the truth.

    Nevertheless, DSA organizers will inevitably pore over Mamdani’s public statements, scrutinizing them to determine whether they reflect a political compromise or an actual shift in political objectives. In this instance, managing the contradiction requires some way of communicating across the divide, some semi-reliable signal of what the mayor is really up to. And so here it is worthwhile to look more closely at the internal relations between Zohran and DSA, rather than simply contrasting them.

    Thus far, I have mostly portrayed DSA and the Zohran apparatus (e.g., the mayor’s office and Our Time) as disconnected entities operating at arm’s length from one another. But this is obviously not the case. In addition to the plethora of DSA members employed by the mayor’s office, there are also formal mechanisms for coordination with the organization as a whole, in the form of regular meetings with the NYC chapter’s elected cochairs. This mirrors the system of Socialists in Office committees, which are intended to be mechanisms for cogovernance between representatives of DSA’s membership and its elected state and local legislators.

    Here is where the “inside” and “outside” of the fabled inside-outside strategy meet. And it is also here that the principle of revolutionary honesty meets the exigencies of operating within the state. Invariably, the delicate business of legislating or governing means that elected officials cannot be fully open about all the behind-the-scenes realities of politics, even with DSA members themselves — the organization, after all, is a remarkably permeable one, that anyone can join simply by putting their credit card details into a website. Thus, the best elected officials can do at times is to convene, for a frank discussion, a smaller group of trusted leaders, who must then exercise their own judgment about enlightening the broader membership.

    For those who fear that socialist electeds will inevitably pull DSA in the direction of liberal co-optation, it is here, in the metaphorical and literal meeting of the politicians and the masses, that the greatest danger lies. And it is not a concern we should ignore but one we should attend to closely. At the same time, if we are indeed going to attempt the experiment of twenty-first-century American electoral socialism at all, it is inevitable and necessary for some such mechanisms to exist.

    Earlier this month, NYC-DSA convened a forum with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the chapter debated whether to re-endorse her for election to the House of Representatives. AOC had been a flash point in the organization for years, and one particularly sore point was her vote to fund Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. In the last cycle, though the chapter endorsed her, DSA’s national leadership split, leading to no national endorsement.

    This year, it seemed, might be a breaking point. As public opinion continues to turn against Israel, how is it tenable to have an elected official taking votes like these, particularly as it becomes clear that there is no real political calculation that justifies shying away from the correct position? Whatever one thinks of the compromises the relationship with AOC entails, DSA has continued to tell an obvious truth: the distinction between “defensive” and “offensive” weapons is meaningless in a situation where Israel is the aggressor against occupied Palestinians and its neighboring countries, and defensive missile shields enable it to wage endless war while being shielded from the consequences.

    At the forum, to the surprise of many, AOC announced that she now opposed any military aid to Israel, of any kind. While for some this was too little, too late, most factions across the DSA spectrum rushed to take credit and declare victory, and in some sense they all deserved to. By whatever combination of backroom pressure and public outrage, socialists had continued to tell the truth, and eventually Representative Ocasio-Cortez decided she could too. She was held accountable. Or we built power. Or both. Or perhaps, as AOC’s ambitions continue to evolve, and the broader liberal position shifts against Israel, neither is true.

    This is not meant as a call for all factions of DSA, or of the Left more broadly, to simply get along. It’s not even really a call to abandon debates over building power or holding electeds accountable. After all, if the Zohran mayoralty represents an objective contradiction that we cannot currently transcend, then that contradiction will inevitably be represented within DSA itself. That is one way of looking at the importance and function of our big tent, multitendency nature.

    A plea for revolutionary honesty is a call for us to be honest about the things we agree on, among ourselves and with the public. But there are important disagreements and unknowns that should be debated, and some deeper, more substantive kinds of analysis that should get more emphasis. I’ll suggest just one that bears directly on Mamdani and the rest of DSA’s elected officials.

    Ultimately, the fate of DSA’s audacious, precarious project of electoral socialism depends on the truth of its basic premise: that it is possible, in the current phase of capitalism, to build up a new kind of institutionalized social democracy to replace the broken Fordist one that sustained the twentieth century’s heavily unionized welfare states. For no matter the stated range of ideologies within DSA’s big tent, even the most revolutionary and least gradualist tendencies wouldn’t really have a reason to be there if they didn’t believe, on some level, that the project of twenty-first-century social democracy was viable for at least a little while.

    If it is, it’s not a regime that would look just like the high tide of the postwar welfare states. And likely not one that would last indefinitely, or transition smoothly into postcapitalism. At some point, there will either be a revolutionary rupture that takes power from the capitalist class for good, or the new social democracy will suffer the same fate as the old, beaten back by ruling-class counterrevolution.

    We need serious analysis of that question, an understanding of the ways the project can be stymied and redirected by the forces of capital. Perhaps we need to start building new kinds of institutions that can point beyond the popular state, such as the popular assemblies proposed by Bhaskar Sunkara and Gabriel Hetland. But in the meantime, we can still organize, tell the truth, and try to use whatever levers of state power we get our hands on to keep our promises to the working class.

    #socialisme #théorie_politique #philosophie #vérité #révolution #USA #socialisme_démocratique

  • Rojava, internationalisme, féminisme : présentation de livre sur la militante Ivana Hoffmann
    https://ricochets.cc/Rojava-internationalisme-feminisme-presentation-de-livre-sur-la-militante-

    Venez nombreux-ses pour découvrir l’histoire d’Ivana Hoffmann, échanger sur l’actualité des luttes au Rojava, sur la force de l’engagement internationaliste et la place des femmes dans le mouvement révolutionnaire aujourd’hui et continuer de faire vivre sa mémoire. #Les_Articles

    / #Ecologie, #Féminisme, Révolution , Démocratie directe, communes libres..., #Luttes_sociales, #Antifascisme

    #Révolution_ #Démocratie_directe,_communes_libres...

  • On ne naît pas Montagnard, on le devient
    https://laviedesidees.fr/On-ne-nait-pas-Montagnard-on-le-devient

    Nicolas Soulas replace la figure du « robespierriste » Claude-François Payan dans une vaste #biographie familiale. Il montre comment une #famille négocie le virage révolutionnaire, à la fois moment d’opportunité unique et parenthèse à l’échelle de stratégies familiales de plus long terme.

    #Histoire #Révolution_française #XVIIIe_siècle
    https://laviedesidees.fr/IMG/pdf/20260427_payan.pdf

  • Guerre de Classe 17/2026 : Indonésie, Népal, Madagascar, Philippines, Equateur, Pérou, Maroc… ad infinitum
    https://ricochets.cc/Guerre-de-Classe-17-2026-Indonesie-Nepal-Madagascar-Philippines-Equateur-P

    Le tout dernier numéro du bulletin GUERRE DE CLASSE #17 #Les_Articles

    / #Livres,_revues, Révoltes, insurrections, débordements..., Révolution , Autoritarisme, régime policier, démocrature..., #Guerres, #Luttes_sociales, #International

    #Révoltes,_insurrections,_débordements... #Révolution_ #Autoritarisme,_régime_policier,_démocrature...

  • S. Férelloc, J. Fourquet, A. Rosencher : « #Comment_nous_sommes_devenus_Américains »
    https://lvsl.fr/s-ferelloc-j-fourquet-a-rosencher-comment-nous-sommes-devenus-americains

    La France et les États-Unis ne seraient pas seulement unis par une histoire partagée et une alliance pluriséculaire : elles auraient également en partage une communauté culturelle. Dans #Civilisation. Comment nous sommes devenus Américains (2017), Régis #debray déconstruit cette thèse. Il défend que l’américanisation de la #Culture française découle de l’hégémonie des Etats-Unis, et d’un renoncement des élites françaises. Pour l’analyser, #Simon_Férelloc, doctorant en histoire et contributeur au Vent Se Lève, intervient aux côtés de Jérôme Fourquet, directeur de l’IFOP, et d’Anne Rosencher, journaliste au Point.

    #Révolution_Française

  • Let’s talk about #LLMs
    https://www.b-list.org/weblog/2026/apr/09/llms

    Everybody seems to agree we’re in the middle of something, though what, exactly, seems to be up for debate. It might be an unprecedented #revolution in #productivity and capabilities, perhaps even the precursor to a technological “#singularity” beyond which it’s impossible to guess what the world might look like. It might be just another vaporware hype cycle that will blow over. It might be a dot-com-style #bubble that will lead to a big crash but still leave us with something useful (the way the #dot-com bubble drove mass adoption of the web). It might be none of those things.

    Many thousands of words have already been spent arguing variations of these positions. So of course today I’m going to throw a few thousand more words at it, because that’s what blogs are for. At least all the ones you’ll read here were written by me (and you can pry my em-dashes from my cold, dead hands).

    #iagen #AI

  • Anarchisme : S’échapper de la sous-culture : le besoin d’organisation et de stratégie
    https://ricochets.cc/Anarchisme-S-echapper-de-la-sous-culture-le-besoin-d-organisation-et-de-st

    Quelle place et quelles stratégies pour l’anarchisme au 21e siècle ? S’enliser dans des sous-cultures ou renouer avec l’organisation révolutionnaire à même de peser réellement ? Si on veut éviter les pièges de l’avant garde et des groupuscules isolés, quel avenir pour l’anarchie ? Un article pose des questions et pistes intéressantes : S’échapper de la sous-culture : le besoin d’organisation et de stratégie Nous sommes convaincus qu’un haut degré d’organisation, ainsi que la question (...) #Les_Articles

    / Révolution , #Autonomie_et_autogestion

    #Révolution_