Greece, Pinatified

Yanis Varoufakis posts Marshall Auerback’s “Greece and the Rape by the Rentiers,” with Varoufakis’ caveat that the best option is for Greece to default.

More on the austerity debacle in Greece
What the (Troika–the European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund) MOU (with the Greek parliament) is really all about:

“It’s a corporate wish list; a mix of punitive belt tightening policies for working people and perks for big oil, big gas, electric, aviation, railroads, communications etc. ‘Fast track licensing’ and baby food have nothing to do with helping Greece reach its budget targets. It’s a joke. … None of this has anything to do with helping Greece. It’s just corporate pillaging gone haywire. Greece is a big pinata that’s just been cracked open and everyone (Euro capital) is pushing and shoving to grab their fistful of candy. All of this is coming soon to a neighborhood near you. If not’s already there, that is” (Mike Whitney, quoted by Chris Floyd).

Bustin’ open the Greeks. Who’s next?

Athens in flames, Michael Dussault (quoted by Naomi Wolf): “’The rebellion has begun,’ the Greek resistance hero and veteran left-winger Manolis Glezos told reporters. Indeed, as students and anarchists fought back waves of riot police assaults on the occupied University Law Department, as hundreds of outraged protesters took over a TV station, and as plumes of smoke and clouds of teargas filled up the Athenian night skies, one thing became overly clear: the social situation in Greece has spun entirely out of control.”

Damned if it shouldn’t be. As Chris Floyd says, what Greeks are facing is down a few levels of hell lower than the imposition of Sharia law.

 There is no (0) possibility that an Anglo-American intervention (which is what a NATO intervention would be) could improve the lives of Syrians in the oil era. However, pro-democracy North Americans can support the Greeks, perhaps Spanish Civil War style? Or what about support in Spain? Right now Spaniards and the Portuguese need help fighting against the conservative state-facilitated anti-labor crusade.

Billy Bragg once composed a little song, RE: serving as a fightin’ tool for Anglo-American capital.

New consensus in Berlin, according to Varoufakis: As soon as Sarkozy wins the French Presidency, Germany will amputate Greece & Portugal (maybe Ireland too) from the EU, and cauterize the wounds by printing money.

Varoufakis thinks the strategy won’t work because:

1) German financiers are underestimating the substantial links between Portuguese banks and Spanish banks, and between Greek banks and German and French banks.
2) Injecting massive liquidity into European banks will Japan1990s-ize them.
3) The problem is in the uneven nature of capitalism, here the geographic core-periphery, that creates systemic trade imbalances, and the lack of a GSRM (global surplus recycling mechanism) in Europe. This problem will not be addressed by the German financier’s solution. So when a couple of countries are amputated, the problem will move over and take up residence in the remaining periphery–Italy, Spain– requiring further amputations.

Richard Koo explains why the Japanese banks failed, and what that means for Europe.

Arabia & the West: Painful Lessons from Media History

In the solid “The Arab Spring and the West: Seven Lessons from History,” The Guardian‘s Seamus Milne reaches into the British Pathe News Video Archive to recall the oil-dependent fundamentals of West-Middle East Relations.

1) The West never gives up its drive to control the Middle East, whatever the setbacks.

2) Imperial powers can usually be relied on to delude themselves about what Arabs actually think.

3) The Big Powers are old hands at prettifying client regimes to keep the oil flowing.

4) People in the Middle East don’t forget their history – even when the US and Europe (conveniently) does.

5) The West has always presented Arabs who insist on running their own affairs as fanatics.

6) Foreign military intervention in the Middle East brings death, destruction, and divide and rule.

7) Western sponsorship of Palestine’s colonisation is a permanent block on normal relations with the Arab world.

Papandreou: Occupy!

The deposed Greek prime minister advocates Occupy!

The Greek parliament forced Papandreou to resign from his position of Prime Minister when he suggested holding a national referendum to allow the Greek people to have a say in whether they would accept the European Union’s bailout plan which would necessitate severe austerity cuts.

Democracy Now! speaks with Papandreou about the financial crisis, the role of banks, and the importance of the growing Occupy Wall Street movement.

 “The Occupy Wall Street movements … are saying something very, very specific, that inequality, in the end, is an inequality of power, and we need to redistribute power, not just money—power—and this is, I think, the democratic challenge that we have today,” Papandreou says.

The Politics of Western Bank Failures

“Public money and public institutions are bailing out a private banking industry that is not solving its own problems… Fundamentally this is a struggle to take a crisis caused by the business community and the governments they support and make the mass of people pay for it. That’s what austerity means. And the real test here is whether the mass of people will absorb it and accept it” –Richard D. Wolff, “The Mating of Our Dysfunctional Political-economic Systems.”

This is a great interview on the repeated political failures in the wake of the failure of economic leaders.

Iceland’s president Olafur R Grímsson: “The difference is that in Iceland we allowed the banks to fail. These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state did not shoulder the responsibility of the failed private banks.” Quoted in “Iceland Exits Recession” (Dec 2011).

Financial Economic Power = Political Stranglehold

The Crisis in the Eurozone
by James K. Galbraith
Salon.com

 “(T)he ECB refuses to solve the crisis at a stroke, which it could do by buying up the weak countries’ bonds and refinancing them. The argument against this is called “moral hazard,” buttressed by old-fashioned inflation fears, but the real issue is that to do so would admit loss of control by creditors over the central bank. Actions parallel to those taken by the Federal Reserve – nationalizing the entire commercial paper market, for instance – would repel the ECB, even though it does buy up sovereign bonds when it has to.

[MF: This is all a polite, econ-theoretical way of saying that the ECB is the tool of financial capital, not a manager of social or economic welfare.]

 So instead the zone has gone about creating a gigantic toxic CDO called the European Financial Stability Fund, which may shortly be turned into an even more gigantic toxic CDS (like AIG, they will call it “insurance”). This may defer panic at most for a little while.

 Technical solutions exist. The most-developed of these is the “Modest Proposal” of Yanis Varoufakis and Stuart Holland, widely backed by older political leaders in Europe. It would 1) convert the first 60 percent of GDP of every eurozone country’s debt to a common European bond, issued by the ECB; 2) recapitalize and Europeanize the banking system, breaking the hammerlock of national banks on national politicians; and 3) fund a New Deal-like program of investment projects through the European Investment Bank.

 Variant proposals include Kunibert Raffer’s call for a sovereign insolvency regime modeled on the U.S. municipal bankruptcy statute, Thomas Palley’s proposal for a new “government banker” and Jan Toporowski’s proposal for a tax on bank balance sheets to retire excess public debt.

 These are the best ideas and none of them will happen. Europe’s political classes exist these days in a vise forged by desperate bankers and angry voters, no less in Germany and France than in Greece or Italy. Discourse is sealed off from fresh ideas and political survival depends on kicking cans down roads so that the fact that this is a banking crisis does not have to be faced. The fate of the weak is at best incidental. Thus every meeting of finance ministers and prime ministers yields treacherous half-measures and legal evasions.

Political fragility also explains the fury in France and Germany when George Papandreou [the calmest man in Europe, by the way, having been born and raised in Minnesota] sought to cut the knot of his rebellious ministers, irresponsible opposition and angry public by putting the latest austerity package to a vote. God help the bankers! The move was fatal to Papandreou in short order, and Greece will now be turned over to a junta of creditors’ deputies if such can be found willing to take the job. It won’t be anyone who wants to continue to live in Greece afterward.

Greece and Ireland are being destroyed. Portugal and Spain are in limbo, and the crisis shifts to Italy – truly too big to fail – which is being put into an IMF-dictated receivership as I write. Meanwhile France struggles to delay the (inevitable) downgrade of its AAA rating by cutting every social and investment program.

If there were an easy exit from the Euro, Greece would be gone already. But Greece is not Argentina with soybeans and oil for the Chinese market, and legally exit from the Euro means leaving the European Union. It’s a choice only Germany can make. For the others, the choice is between cancer and heart attack, barring a transformation in Northern Europe that not even Socialist victories in the next round of French and German elections would bring.

[MF: Here, I would demur. This explains why Greece hasn’t exited so far. But at this point, why not choose exit? Everybody proper said, following orthodox theory, that exit wouldn’t work for Malaysia, Argentina, etc. as well. But it did. Considering the empirical evidence at this point in history, and adding to that game theory logic, I think exit is the only rational option now.]

So the cauldrons bubble. Debtor Europe is sliding toward social breakdown, financial panic and ultimately to emigration, once again, as the way out, for some. Yet – and here is another difference with the United States – people there have not entirely forgotten how to fight back. Marches, demonstrations, strikes and general strikes are on the rise. We are at the point where political structures offer no hope, and the baton stands to pass, quite soon, to the hand of resistance. It may not be capable of much – but we shall see.”

…..

There remains a popular or perhaps professional conservative economist’s insistence that the cause of economic crisis in Europe is immoral Greek consumer and political behaviour. That might be an opportune, EZ, resonant, discursive tactic if you’re a Greek with a meso-political axe to grind or a conservative economist clinging to the wire monkey mother of your dogma.

As someone who was hounded by bankers and real estate agents to buy a house in the US at the peak of the bubble (and of course I was! I was even given a whole book by the realtor explaining in simple terms that if I bought a home, I could be part of the Infinite Pyramid Scheme (TM) and someone would without fail buy that home from me for an even-more inflated price.), when I had just graduated from my PhD program with grotesque mounds of student debt, I know good and well that moralistic arguments about the consumer root of economic crises are full-on undiluted bullshit, toxic CDOs, if you will.

To still buy those toxic funds, you would have to be completely autistic; hallucinating nothingness in the face of mass marketing, highly-unequal social status and institutionally-flogged hegemony; utterly blind to the global quality of the economy; and abjectly deaf to the extreme variations in money-borrowing and -lending power. You would have to be a conservative economist, or the slave of some such defunct economist).

Debt + No Class Compromise > Delay > Asset Liquidation

If you get your rocks off by pursing your lips sourly and pointing fingers at more-or-less hapless pawns, here’s a link to Greg Palast’s observation of one of the proximate causes of Greek economic crisis. The conservatives had to borrow from financial capital in order to temporarily prop up the pretense that the financial capitalist’s order works, and the conservatives can operate it. The order, one of primitive accumulation, doesn’t, cannot work for most societies and people and environments. So what were conservatives supposed to do? Admit that, and lead the socialist revolution? THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Did I even have to caps-lock that? No. Conservatives’ only (pro-system) choice was debt-to-delay. So that is not a choice.

Now, should any working class person ever elect a liberal, let alone a conservative, to represent her in the political sphere? No. Absolutely not. Because that debt-to-delay non-choice is exactly what you get from them. Fetishizing the politicians’ systematic corruption is kind of perverse and creepy and stunted, given it’s about “catching” them doing what they are ideologically-constrained and coached to do.

Regardless of Keynesians’ belief that states can deficit spend, everyone believes in debt–or money liquidity, as it’s known when we’re not being manipulatively moralistic. It’s a fundamental part of economies, as well as pious, exploitative moral economies. Debt was the key to US military-economic dominance in the latter half of the 20th century, and this constrained everyone else’s options–especially in Europe, not to even mention how the financialization/debt model was sold, was saturation-marketed as the 1-Tru (TM) path to infinite economic expansion and happyness.

But of course the underlying problem is that actually-existing financialized capital is principally a tool for primitive accumulation–appropriating, concentrating and controlling value and exchange. In other words, debt-to-delay leads inexorably to wicked public and smallholder asset liquidation and a continuous and depleting debt-to-liquidation cycle, or else one helluva social fight to force garbage investors to take the losses on their garbage investments and to clean up their investment practices.

Our elites are very diligent at reminding us about the terms of their protection racket: that if investors are forced to be prudent, they will withhold liquidity and offload the costs onto the working class and the public. However, the traditional  threats have begun to mean nothing, because the primitive accumulation debt-to-liquidation cycle has resulted in withheld liquidity and economic crisis offloaded onto the working class and smallholders anyway. When there’s no class compromise, the hegemonic leverage wears down quickly, leaving bare brutality.

Unless we fight to reduce its power, we cannot escape capitalist primitive accumulation and our own over-determined economic dispossession and depletion. Yet we still have a wide range of commentators declaring TINA on austerity. There are alternatives. The alternatives simply do not support financial-military global monopoly capitalism.

Thus, faced with this impassible dilemma, (much like the 20% (a low) of Americans who still somehow believe that they will be in the top 1% of wealth accumulators) paid experts somehow still desperately pretend to believe that there is a universal, moral path to wealth accumulation in a fictitious 2-D world without power, and that little Greece, if they’d just been more moral, could have followed that yellow brick road, paved by the benevolent financial system devoted to unproductive accumulation and geo-political power moves undertaken by the financial capital centers of the US (US banks own over 10% of Greek risk), England, France and Germany in the west, and oil capitalists and China eastward. The level of political- economic and geopolitical naivete required to maintain this moral handwringing and within-Greece fingerpointing is flabberghasting at this point in history.

Within the context of global monopoly capitalism, nothing could have been done for the welfare of peripheral small economies (countries) like Greece. Financial-military capital has not been and is not aligned for this. That this mal-alignment destroys capital and undermines the Greek, European or global economy is not a problem to financial-military capital–especially not when the dollar as world reserve currency automatically secures such resolute US dependability for capital. (Which is why OWS is so important to disciplining global speculation.)

Someday, the capitalist lords and retainers claim, global monopoly capital may get in the mood or accidentally do something to benefit non-elites. You just never know. It’s happened (with some considerable drawbacks, including population explosion, scarcity and environmental catastrophe. But dammit some of us did get those nice SUVs for a while in some places.) In the face of their brutal solipsism and frigidity, the deity-bankers only ask for assurances that, as long as you or your politicians are worried about liquidity for your society’s survival (assuming of course that we’re not interested in bothering to establish a global network of rebellion), they are entitled to the wealth your society creates into the future. This is the blackmail of late monopoly capitalism. To really paraphrase Nixon all out of recognition, perhaps we all have Stockholm Syndrome now. You give your wealth. You get a steady supply of bloody fingers, etc. in the mailbox. It all ends when you open up the envelope to find your own bloody heart muscle wrapped in a tissue.

And for what? Regardless of what happens to the body, the economy or societies or the environment, as long as they get the wealth, financial capital wins. –Perhaps we go along with it because we think the capitalists are sexy (Thanks for the beer goggles, Frank Luntz!), because even all the militarized cops can’t follow all of us around in our daily rounds of assiduous obedience.

The US Model of Social Exclusion

Here is a link to Schmmitt & Zipperer’s “Is the US A Good Model for Reducing Social Exclusion in Europe?” (2006) CEPR.

Not so much, contend the authors, analyzing social exclusion through the variables of income inequality, poverty, education, health, crime and punishment, the labor market and finally, the coup de gras, social mobility.

Feminism & Neoliberalism: Dovetail Development

Nancy Fraser on the co-development of the latter-20th century feminist movement and neoliberalism as a form of capitalism.

Neoliberalism wants cheap women workers.

Pillars of 2nd wave feminism (against state-organized capitalism) that melded with neoliberalism, post-1970s, to create the degraded form of feminism characteristic of the conservative age:

1) Critique of economism/focus on distributive justice –> cultural determinism, glorifying political-economic ignorance.
2) Critique of androcentrism, male family wage–> uncritical embrace of wage labour.
3) Critique of managerialism/technocracy/nation-state as arena of political contestation

–>market over state, deregulation, welfare state retrenchment.

It’s not just that feminism has been hijacked by capital.

There is an affinity between feminism & neoliberalism that enables their coalition: They both oppose traditional authority. Ideally, feminists oppose the traditional authority of elders, fathers, husbands; capitalists oppose traditional authority that slows or broadly redistributes profit accumulation. But capital has the resources and some feminists have the motivation to efface those specificities, or to cohere when the specifics overlap; and it’s capital’s terrain.

Current trends in feminist neoliberalism:

1) Today, feminism is less a critique of capitalism, and more of a contribution to neoliberalism, eg. microcredit finance as “answer” to poverty.

2) Gender and sexuality departments in universities are used to pioneer academic proletarianization, privatization and other neoliberal policies.

3) With the explosion of surveillance states, especially the US, feminist anti-male violence politics and policies are used as a tool to enforce US-centric state monopoly on violence and conservative policy orthodoxy within the capitalist World-system.

4) Feminist obeausity entrepreneurs oppose pro-working class food, health, and transit movements.

5) Neoliberal feminists continue to insist that we have to valorize popular political-economic illiteracy, which, they hold, is within a properly female domain, whereas they hold that political-economic literacy is “male.” This conceptualization translates in practice into the Victorian Progressivist/feminist assumption that a competent, educated woman’s work is properly low-paid/unpaid caregiving and hegemony transmission, wherefrom eventually elect women are promoted into caregiving and cultural management.

6) “Polyvocality” busywork keeps the young women fussing, fretting and preening about in the house, forever perfecting cocktail party guest lists and chiding each other about their manners, even as the house is being systematically dismantled by bulldozers, and plundered by Christian patriarchs, bankers, and oil men. It’s a prefigurative technique; it’s not political engagement. It’s a partial gesture, thats game-changing effectiveness requires social preconditions.

I agree strongly with Nancy Fraser’s dead-on observation that feminists (maybe because we come from different political and material vantage points) have not in this conservative era figured out how to oppose traditional authority in a way that makes feminism distinct from neoliberalism (that is, US-centric global monopoly capitalism).

While feminists who acknowledge this prefer to claim that feminism is just weaker than conservatism, and there is truth to that, it is also true that mainstream, liberal feminist politics and policies cohere feminists to neoliberal initiatives as well.

Eisenstein, Hester. 2009. Feminism Seduced: How Global Elites Use Women’s Labor and Ideas to Exploit the World. Boulder: Paradigm.

Eisenstein essentially takes up Viriginia Woolf’s enlightened charge in “Three Guineas” (1938).

and cites Johanna Brenner: “(M)ainstream feminist goals are entirely compatible with the economic doctrines of corporate globalization” (ix).

Judith Orr (2010) reviews the feminist terrain from England.

But for one anti-neoliberal feminist example, Naomi Wolf is always in there, drawing the line in the sand between capitalist class political projects and feminist commitments. You may prefer the (co-optable, acontextual) brand of female “purity” offered by liberal or radical feminism, but I really appreciate the dirty public role Wolf takes on in these controversies.

Prominent, reliable anti-neoliberal feminists include:

Nancy Fraser
Ellen Meiksins-Wood
Selma James
Judith Orr
Johanna Brenner
Hester Eisenstein
Naomi Wolf
Angela Davis
Barbara Ehrenreich
Julie Matthaei
Amy Goodman
Marilyn Waring
Jacqui M. Alexander
Chandra Talpade Mohanty
Pnina Werbner
Frances Fox Piven
Arlie Hochschild
Juliet Schor
Holly Sklar
Diane Elson
Mariane Ferber
Julie Nelson
Mimi Abromowitz
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Kim Phillips-Fein
Stephanie Coontz
Lani Guinier
Brooksley Born (?)
Naomi Klein
Sasha Lilley
Kate Drabinski
Emily Drabinski
Karen Orren (?)

Historical left-feminists:

Alexandra Kollontai
Alice Field
Jenny Marx Longuet
Eleanor Marx
Annie Besant
Silvia Pankhurst
Virginia Woolf
Raya Dunayevskaya
Dora Monefiore
Clara Zetkin
Dolores Ibarruri
Lena Morrow Lewis
Harriet Taylor
Evelyn Reed
Kate Millett
Bernice Shoul
Teresa Ebert
Marlene Dixon

TBC…

What will feminists replace traditional patriarchal authority with, besides the orthodox, male-dominated US-centric market daddy wagon we’ve way too often been hitched to and steered by since the 1970s?

 Neoliberal feminism is not so much an abeyance institution as it is a technique for advancing conservative initiatives that feast on the blood, sweat and tears of women– while letting feminists feel those familiar feminine feelings: righteous and altruistic and busy…and exhausted and frustrated. This is a central problem to feminism that should no longer be pussy-footed around in the interest of maintaining a vagina- and queer sexual identity-centered coalition.


It does not increase women’s freedoms to answer “We shall replace the capitalist capitan of our hearts with polyvocality,” the idealist, romantic, pluralist “substitute” for sometimes-coalitional, sometimes-contentious political democracy, and a diluted, denatured and anxiously-respectable form of resistance. Which is not to say polyvocality isn’t difficult. Indeed, under present might-makes-right social relations, polyvocality can never be substantively accomplished to challenge the order. That difficulty doesn’t mean it is the prime lever to order change.

We don’t exit hierarchical, exclusionary, patriarchal “gang” relations by urging an interdependent pluralistic voluntarism (AKA  polyvocality). There’s an alluring micro-macro homology to that theory–and it’s too easy, and the US has shown that the valorization of pluralism cannot counter social human organization and power within a hierarchy building, surplus accumulating framework.

Instead Enlightenment’s champions fight together, over centuries, to found institutions that systematically, broadly redistribute  resources, surplus, status, and power (This is the Frodo Baggins theory: Concentrated power is a burden that corrupts. Control tyranny by distributing power to those least capable of (ab)using it, and keep it moving around. I’m sorry, it’s very nerdly; but essentially, in this view, Lord of the Rings is an Enlightenment story about how you get to communism. It should be rewritten by a socialist-feminist.), and we fight to beat back organized, capital-backed coalitions of conservatives–people who specifically want to restrict power, status and surplus to a small group most able to abuse it.

This is a long haul. Sometimes it requires disruption; sometimes it requires coalition-building and alternative institution building. Because there is an outside context of motivated power that systematically rapes and pillages, you cannot (figuratively) expand the acequias outside the remote interstices (figuratively, Northern NM) unless you repeatedly fight the long fight, as well as build alternative institutions and culture. Here is where historical-materialist feminists do not buy the capitalist portrayal of communism. Yes, communists fight, and that is needed. Pacified alterity cannot induce change by itself, because surplus-accumulating power is complex enough and flexible enough to absorb it; and it is not enough to celebrate the marginalized existence of pacified alterity within a dehumanizing, environmentally-destructive system. We need to re-engage strategic, contentious politics, to disrupt, as historical political sociologists Frances-Fox Piven and Domhoff will agree.

As Lichterman says, it is strategic not to reify specific individuals and groups as opponents, so that we can recognize the moment’s coalition opportunities; but we always have to be able to recognize the conservative difference and oppose it. We understand that egalitarian liberation requires a role for creative, contentious collective strategy when we recognize, as Zizek notes, that an order, including patriarchy, mobilizes its defenders.  The twentieth century’s basic passion, “the belief that politics was the key to our truths as well as our myths,” (Hobsbawm 2012) has not been superceded, only suppressed for class warfare purposes.


Polyvocality is necessary, but so extremely insufficient, that by itself, it does more harm (contributes to tyranny) than good (moves us toward broad egalitarian, developmental relations). Within the context of organized conservatism, the process and goal of polyvocality, and the prefigurative politics of polyvocality tend to deliver not polyvocality but conservatism, in the form of neoliberalism (conservatism-cum-liberalism). This is because the capitalist market grotesquely amplifies the voice of the powerful, the accumulators. In a putatively-polyvocal (pluralist) regime, the automatically-amplified voice will drown out all others. Like voting, polyvocality is an utter and complete mirage under capitalism. It prettily promises that immediately we can model and deliver equal and sufficient liberation for all, and with herculean effort it may provide a freedom here or there, at a scale sufficient to keep the ladies busy with manners and guest list projects while egalitarian freedoms are crushed en masse. Not unlike white women’s traditional role in the US South. So far, polyvocality’s chief accomplishment is to support capitalist class cohesion, and insofar as feminists subscribe to it, to subsume non-elite women under the project of multicultural capitalist class cohesion. Polyvocality alone cannot reduce women-exploiting, women-crippling business as usual.

You cannot move toward either political or cultural democracy if you are studiously neglecting and forever deferring to disrupt the egregious, overbuilt, institutionalized, hierarchically-structured relationships of tyranny and domination–our relationships within the oikos, our relationships to the surpluses extracted and amassed, and to those who control them–that structure our everyday lives. That neglect is the result of making the wrong (respectable, proper) coalitions.

Polyvocality has to be a preservation practice of monastery communities, and a second-tier goal, after feminists have stopped forming “coalitions” with (being co-opted by) capital’s primitive accumulation and exploitation initiatives, and have instead embraced the long hard road of forming capitalist order-disruptive, organization-building coalitions with the working class, which is not male (even if conservatives have had some of it wishing it were). It’s obvious that US working class institutions are heavily to blame for this coalition failure–but they’re nearly obliterated now. 


The point I am making in this post:
Feminists need a socialist backbone not because socialism is a more transhistorically-essential political program; not at all. Feminists need a socialist backbone because without a critique of capital, in a capitalist context, feminism will be emphatically subsumed by and subordinated to conservative surplus and power accumulation projects that eviscerate feminist achievements and obstruct feminist goals.


The conservatives are showing us that in the US, time and time again, they can invoke and wield Little King politics that promise, no matter what else might be going on, that every dispossessed American can join together with the political-economic elite in ruling with an iron fist over women as a group. That political strategy cannot be beat back and held down unless feminists can join together with socialists to advance, both with some prefigurative politics and with plenty of non-innocent, political conflict, both the egalitarian distribution of the wealth society collectively creates and post-feudal freedoms for all.

Women who have emerged from abuse know–You cannot overcome systematic abuse with a culture of “egalitarian” respect and listening, practiced by only one side, the abused. Now consider this difference in this analogy: We cannot exit our abusive relationship (based in surplus and power accumulation)–We cannot exit our planet, and find a more supportive “women’s shelter” planet. Ours is the long, hard battle not just to maintain a distinct, better vision of human relations, but to engage in conflict, to subdue, and to conquer the oppressor–as the political-economic opportunity strikes (as he loses coherence, confidence, hegemonic monopoly), and put him on a new track, within which he is motivated and compelled to share in the reproductive provisioning and to share resources, status, and power.

At that point the idealists–the anarchists and postmodernists have an important role to play in fostering reinforcing polyvocal culture and art. The monks and nuns of prefigurative politics will take care of themselves today. We need to be fostering, valorizing, and protecting organizers, strategists, communist horizon theorists (including socialist-feminists), monkeywrenchers, and fighters.