0 2 .Introduction

2

.IntroductionW h y your re volution is no libe ration!

W ith th is re ade r, w e w ant to tak e a stand against th e curre ntly pre dom inating analyse s , of th e anti-globalisation m ove m e nt, w h ich , articulating th e m s e lve s as in th e broade st s e ns e le ft-w ing and anticapitalist, constantly boiste rously trum pe t th e ir opinion, th at anoth e r w orld w as poss ible . W e h ave s e rious doubts th at th is “oth e r” w orld, w as going to be of a be tte r constitution th an th e curre nt one . Th is anti-globalisation m ove m e nt is of cours e not at all m arginalis e d, but is e njoying broad sym path y, w h ich re ach e s from th e “bourge ois le ft” righ t to th e so-calle d ce ntre of socie ty and w h ich is e ve n s h are d by Ne o-Nazis

Th e anti-globalisation m ove m e nt is -as its protagonists ce rtainly e m ph as is e w h e n facing criticism -a h e te roge nous m ove m e nt, in w h ich m any groups and individuals h ave agre e d to a m inim um cons e nsus . In th e cas e of th e activitie s against th is ye ar’s G8-sum m it th is cons e nsus w ill cons ist of th e participating h e ads of gove rnm e nt be ing e vil, w h e re as de m onstrators and activists on th e oth e r s ide of th e fe nce are “good”. W ith in th e last couple of ye ars , anoth e r cons e nsus h as -e xplicitly and im plicitly-be e n agre e d on: An antagonism tow ard th e USA and Israe l, as w e ll as a structurally anti-Se m itic criticism of capitalism .

Th e clos ing state m e nt of th e w orld social forum of Porto Ale gre e xpre s s e d th e forum s̀ solidarity w ith th e “Pale stinian pe ople ” - not a w ord about suicide bom bings or islam ic anti- Se m itism . Th e Europe an Social Forum in Paris w illingly offe re d a platform to th e islam ist and anti-s e m ite Tariq Ram adan, w h ilst activists , th at criticis e d th e anti-Se m itism of th e No-Globals in a Flye r, w e re attack e d and e xpe lle d from th e forum . At an e ve nt during th e EU-Sum m it in Cope nh age n th e Danis h group “Global Roots” de m ande d a boycott of Israe l ste w ards w ore s h irts w ith th e slogan “Burn Israe l Burn” on th e m . During an ATTAC m e e ting in Ge rm any th e Italian globalisation critic Alfonso de Vito com pare d Israe ls policy tow ard th e Pale stinians w ith th e e viction of th e W arsaw Gh e tto. Noam Ch om s k y w h o can’ t de te ct anti-Se m itism in Robe rt Faurris sons state m e nt th at th e h olocaust w as a Z ionist lie auth ore d a m anife sto in sum m e r 2006 w h ich de clare s Israe l guilty of th e H isbollah s attack on Israe ls North be caus e it w as aim ing to liq uidate th e Pale stinian state . Th is s illy w rit w h ich not only ignore s th e fact th at th e re is no Pale stinian state but also turns a blind e ye to Israe ls w ith draw al from th e Gaza strip and th e subs e q ue nt te rror offe ns ive of th e Pale stinians w as prom ptly s igne d by oth e r idols of th e anti-globalisation m ove m e nt: Naom i Kle in, Jos e Sarango, Arundh ati Roy (am ongst oth e rs).Th e latte r w as re ce ntly only notable by a com ple te ly am is s analys is of capitalism in w h ich globalisation - e q uate d w ith im pe rialism - is unde rstood as a conspiracy of “m e n in suits”(Am e ricans of cours e ), w h o “tre k th e w orld lik e locusts”. Not forge tting th e m e s s ias and h e ad-of-state of th e No-Globals, H ugo Ch ave z, close ally of th e Iranian m ullah re gim e w h ich is curre ntly s e dously w ork ing on th e nucle ar de struction of Israe l and w h ich flaunts its pre s ide nt as th e inte rnational figure h e ad of an e xte rm ination-anti-Se m itism .

W h y th e h atre d for Israe l and th e Je w s? Afte r e ve ry attack on a synagogue or anoth e r Je w is h institution Israe ls alle ge dly disproportional m ilitary policy is at le ast cons ide re d as th e re ason for th e attack . No assault on a m osq ue or an African im m igrant in Europe h as e ve r be e n justifie d w ith a re fe re nce to th e policy of Muslim or African state s . W h y th e pe rsonalisation of th e circum stance s of capital? It s h ould be k now n s ince Marx th at capitalism is not an e ve nt stage d by h andful of “m e n

in suits” but a total social condition. W ith th is cognizance th is re ade r w ants to contribute to th e form ulation of a radical criticism .

Anti- Se m itism

H ostility tow ards Je w s h as a long tradition. It originally m ainly e xpre s s e d its e lf in a re ligiously m otivate d re je ction of th e Je w is h be lie f initially by polyth e istic re ligions in ancie nt Rom e , late r also by m onoth e istic Ch ristianity and Islam w h ich e nte re d into a com pe tition of supe rstition w ith Judaism (w h ich h ad be e n th e ir ow n origin). H ow e ve r, th e follow ing w ill not m ainly be about anti-judaism , re ligiously m otivate d h ostility tow ard Je w s in all its form s . W e rath e r focus on th e q ue stion w h y anti-Se m itism cam e to life again w ith th e adve nt of m ode rnity in th e m iddle of th e 19 th ce ntury, de spite th e loss of im portance of re ligion th at accom panie d th is e ra and w h y it could te rrifyingly culm inate in th e e xtinction of th e Je w s by th e Nazis . At th e sam e tim e , curre nt form s of antiSe m itism , particularly in re lation w ith criticism of and re s istance against dom inance s h all be look e d at.

Anti-Se m itism and social te nsions

Th e h atre d tow ard Je w s at th e be ginning of m ode rnity stands pure ly e xte rnally by its re fe re nce to th e sam e obje ct of re s e ntm e nt in th e tradition of re ligious anti-Se m itism and can partially avail its e lf w ith traditional pre judice s and adscriptions . Inte rnally h ow e ve r, m ode rn anti-Se m itism e xe cute s a bre ak w ith th e re ligiously and h istorico-culturally m otivate d h atre d by conve rting pogrom s and m ass -m urde r into a m e ans of articulation for social te ns ions w h ich do not dire ctly corre late w ith th e re spe ctive socie ty’s re lation w ith th e Je w s . Th e pogrom s are now de tach e d from suppos e dly concre te e ve nts w h ich in th e m iddle age s , and th e e arly m ode rn age s s e rve d as th e occas ion for anti-judaistic pogrom s and e victions from e ntire are as and dom inions (Je w s w e re th e n s e e n as th e caus e rs of th e black plague and w e re m ade re spons ible for alle ge d infanticide s and w e ll-poisoning.). Mode rn anti-Se m itism survive s w ith Je w s but

3

be tte r still w ith out th e m . Adorno and H ork h e im e r nam e d th is proje ctive ch aracte r as e arly as 19 47:

“W h e n th e m ass e s acce pt th e re actionary tick e t w h ich contains th e ite m against th e Je w s th e y obe y social m e ch anism s in w h ich e xpe rie nce s w ith Je w s don’t play a part”.1

Th e conflict of w h ich anti-Se m itism aros e is of cours e a re al one . Th e inte rnal discord and re s istance th at finds its e xpre s s ion in anti-Se m itic pre judice s is th e re sult of e xte rnal pe rce ption. It is de cis ive h ow e ve r, th at th e e xpe rie nce d discord by w h ich h atre d for Je w s is be ing fe d is a com ple te ly diffe re nt one and is inde pe nde nt of its obje ct of re fe re nce . Anti-Se m itism is th e accom plis h m e nt of a s h ift w h ich re place s a discordantly e xpe rie nce d re ality w ith a com pe nsatory re ality and suppos e dly re solve s th e discord by doing so.

Be s ide s th at Je w s are in th e conte xt of ps e udo-scie ntific studie s in th e outgoing 19 th ce ntury incre as ingly be ing de fine d as a racial-biological group th at, apart from th e ch aracte r traits ascribe d to th e m , w ould also diffe re ntiate its e lf from th e re st of th e population by ph ys ical fe ature s . Paralle l to th is de ve lopm e nt th e conce pt of race is be ing introduce d into th e dom e stic political organisation of nations w h ich are be ing incre as ingly racially ch arge d. Be caus e of th e ir suppos e d biological diffe re nce alone Je w s now constitute a fore ign body and are , by be ing an im aginary counte r-race , e s s e ntial for th e constitution of th e s e lf-de piction of th os e “Volk s k örpe r”.

Basics: e xch ange -and practical value , abstract and concre te w ork

Th e organisation and constant e xte ns ion of th e m e rch andis e trade s ince th e outgoing m iddle age s le d to a fundam e ntal uph e aval for produce rs . Pe asants and th e m ajority of craftsm e n w e re be ing robbe d of th e ir s e lf-sufficie nt e conom y by th e e xte ns ion of m one y-and m ark e t orie nte d proce s s e s . At th e sam e tim e th e y w e re re lie ve d of th e dire ct com pulsory dutie s payable to th e fe udal landlord and of h is dire ct pe rsonal rule and w e re be ing inte grate d into th e m ark e t h appe nings . A spe cialisation aim e d at yie ld e nh ance m e nt be gan w h ich m e ant th at pe ople didn’t h ave to purch as e or barte r s e lf-produce d goods on th e m ark e ts anym ore . At th is point th e h istorical path of th e re duction of ow n production starts w h ich e nds w ith only th e abstract com m odity of one ’s ow n m anpow e r be ing le ft -th e e m e rge nce of th e w ork ing class . Th e m ajor advantage s of th e divis ion of labour and spe cialisation, h ow e ve r, th e e nh ance m e nt of productivity and of th e q uality of production as th e foundation of for a life libe rate d of ne e ds th e produce rs are de prive d of. An e nh ance d productivity is not be ing translate d into s h orte r w ork ing h ours but le ads , according to th e law s of capitalist com m odity production, to a de pre cition in value of th e com m oditie s . In so far as th is e ve n re sults in a gain in value for th e produce rs at all th is gain is ce rtainly not in any w ay proportional to th e e xte nt of th e adde d value .

Th e rule s and logic of th e m ark e t e conom y s e e th e e xch ange value , an abstract ch aracte ristic, th at is constantly subje ct to fluctuations and ch ange s tak e its place be s ide s th e practical value of th e ite m s carrie d to th e m ark e t. As soon as ite m s are be ing not m anufacture d for us e but prim arily for e xch ange th e ir practical be ne fit be com e s s e condary for th e produce r. It is now m ainly of inte re st, h ow m any oth e r ite m s h e can ge t for th e one h e m ade . Th e q uid pro q uo re lation is de cis ive ite m s be com e com m oditie s , be com e goods m e ant for barte r. W ith th e de ve lopm e nt of capitalism com m oditie s be com e th e typical face of w e alth .

If com m oditie s h ave th e tw in-ch aracte r of poss e s s ing practical-and e xch ange value th is also h olds true for th e labour ne e de d to m anufacture it. Now , labour doe s not only produce a concre te ite m but ge ne rate s a value . As all com m oditie s are in a e q uivale nt re lation to e ach oth e r e ach com m odity-producing labour e nte rs into such a re lations h ip too. Be s ide s th e com m odity labour produce s a value abstract of th e concre te s h ape of th e w ork . By th is , labour re ce ive s a tw in-ch aracte r too: it is concre te (producing th e com m odity) and abstract (ge ne rating th e value ).

W h e th e r craft e nte rprise or inte rnational corporation…

Th is tw in ch aracte r of labour and com m odity, im m ane nt to capitalism , is not laid bare th ough . It e xists inde pe nde nt of pe ople ’s aw are ne s s . W ith th e addition of m one y th e abstract s ide of th e com m odity and w ith it th at of labour rath e r s e e m s to be dispos e d of. Th e com m odity, and w ith it th e labour are be ing re duce d to th e ir practical value and th e ir concre te ch aracte r re spe ctive ly. Mone y is de picte d as th e sole location of value as a m anife station of th e abstract. Socie tie s conditions and social re lations are ne ce s sarily alre ady pre de te rm ine d in labour and com m odity and are so be ing disguis e d: Com m oditie s appe ar as pure ly obje ctive , concre te article s of daily us e w h e re as th e form of value and w ith it th e socie tal conditions , s e e m to m anife st its e lf in th e abstracte d form of m one y. Th e contrarity of th e abstract and th e concre te w h ich de te rm ine s th e alie nate d socie tal re lations of capitalism is suppos e dly re solve d th e tw o oppos ite s de pe nde nt of e ach oth e r, are be ing disas sociate d.

Th e abstract s ide of capitalistic socialization pe rce ive d as concre te in th e form of m one y is ofte n s e e n as th e e s s e nce of capitalism as such and th e re by be com e s th e targe t of th e re volt against conditions e xpe rie nce d as insuffe rable . Mone y and w ith it value is re pe ate dly be ing s e e n as th e re ason for e xploitation and e conom ic distre s s w h ile com m oditie s as natural obje cts of utility, s e e m to e xist inde pe nde ntly of th at. Th e Nazis in particular pre ach e d of an antagonism of natural ”cre ating” capital and “m one y grubbing” capital re je cte d as be ing artificial and dis inte grating w h ich disguis e s th e oppos ition of value de ve loping a m om e ntum of its ow n in m one y and concre te w ork as w e ll as th e ne ce s sary corre lation of value -and com m odity form s . At th e sam e tim e it is propos e d to e lim inate th e grie vance s im m ane nt to capitalism by e lim inating one s ide of th e coin only. More ove r, th is suspe ns ion of th e conne ction be tw e e n th e form of value

1. Max H ork h e im e r/Th e odor W . Adorno, D iale k tik de r Aufk lärung, Frank furt a.M. 19 69 , P. 210.

4

and th e form of com m odity of concre te and abstract w ork cle ars th e w ay for a pe rsonalisation of th e criticism of capitalism . It is now poss ible to sole ly h old th os e com panie s and branch e s of th e e conom y re spons ible for actually e xpe rie nce d h ards h ip th at adm iniste r financial capital: Bank s and th e stock e xch ange be com e th e m ain targe ts of criticism if ne e de d a m ajor inte rnationally acting corporation w ill do. It is ce rtain h ow e ve r, th at th e craft e nte rpris e h as got noth ing to do w ith all th e m is e ry.

O nly at a first glance th ough , are th e re m ajor diffe re nce s be tw e e n a local craft e nte rpris e , D e utsch e Bank and Daim le r Ch rysle r. Th e y all follow th e sam e principle - capitalistic value addition - and can m e re ly be distinguis h e d be tw e e n be caus e of th e ir e conom ic succe s s and th e influe nce re sulting from it. A criticism of capitalism lim ite d to big playe rs bypass e s th e totality of socie tal re lations and disguis e s th e s e by pre s e nting a concre te scape goat th at can also s e rve as th e obje ct of viole nce for th e anti-capitalist re volt. Th e ch aracte r of capitalism as an abstract and total condition of socie ty is be ing conce ale d be h ind th is false asce rtainm e nt and is be ing re vok e d of a fundam e ntal radical criticism .

Th e anti-se m itism of th e anticapitalist re volt

More ove r, th e pe rsonalisation of th e capitalist socialization cre ate s th e structure of m ode rn anti-Se m itism . Value , m one y and trade as abstract h om e le s s and e xploitative form s are be ing ascribe d to particular pe rsons : Bank e rs , Fat Cats and capitalists . Th e ste p th e n to th e pe rsonalisation of anti-Se m itism , to th e Je w , w h ich m ost globalisation critics h ave not tak e n ye t, is only a sm all one . Th is as sociation is , h ow e ve r, bas e d on pre judice s pass e d on s ince th e m iddle age s of th e Je w be ing a h om e le s s h uck ste r, e xtortione r and e xploite r so pe rfe ctly obvious th at it doe sn’t ne e d to be e xpre s s e d ope nly. Ye t, th e Nazis did and justifie d th e m urde ring of s ix m illion pe ople in an industrially organis e d syste m w ith th e figh t against th e “m one y grubbing” Je w is h capital. From th e standpoint of a m isguide d criticism of capitalism w h ich lim its its e lf to th e abstract s ide of capitalist cre ation of value and to bank s , capitalists , m ajor corporations -and in th is w ay of th ink ing to th e Je w -as its face th is w as only cons e q ue nt.

Th e anticapitalist re volt against th e s e parate d, abstract s ide of capitalist cre ation of value is th e re by structurally anti-s e m itic. Th e pogrom is alre ady arrange d for. As de pre s s ing as it m ay be anticapitalist criticism alw ays h as to targe t th e e ntire structure and m ust alw ays cons ide r th e totality of socie tal re lations . In th os e , capitalists are noth ing but a anoth e r form of w ork e rs , ne ith e r be tte r nor w ors e . Th e e xiste nce of class e s and th e re lations of dom inance im m ane nt to th e m s h all of cours e not be ne gate d but w e all contribute to th e continuity of th e syste m . Eve rybody is inde pe nde nt of h is or h e r incom e and th e e conom ic circum stance s h e or s h e is living unde r s im ply a sm all cog in th e w h e e l. Th e re is no e scape : Not by s h opping at th e local coope rative inste ad of at H & M, not by e ating in th e local soup-k itch e n inste ad of at McDonald’s .

It’s about Israe l

Since th e 6-day w ar ,a ne w ve rs ion of anti-Se m itism h as de ve lope d and tak e n h old in th e Europe an le ft w h ich originate s in th e criticism of Israe l. It is th e m ain fe ature of th is ide ology th at it trie s to de pict its anti-Se m itism as anti-racism by attack ing Israe l as a suppos e dly racist state . In th is anti-israe li, anti-Z ionist anti-Se m itism , islam ism , ne o-fascist, de m ocratic and

“globalisation-critical” anti-s e m ite s find a com m on ground. Th e pre te nde d antiracist le gitim ation unde r th e cam ouflage of anti-zionism also allow s for th e inte gration of anti-Se m itism into e ve n le ft-w ing and unive rsalist ide ologie s afte r th e Sh oah , by m isus ing an urge ntly ne ce s sary anti-racism w h ich s h ould not pre te nd to be culture -re lativistic.

Z ionism de scribe s th e Je w is h national m ove m e nt th at de ve lope d in th e last de cade s of th e 19 th ce ntury. Th e odor H e rzl’s pam ph le t “De r Jude nstaat” in 189 6 and th e first Z ionist congre s s in Bas e l in 189 7 w e re e s s e ntial to th is m ove m e nt. Th e goal of th e Z ionists w as th e foundation of a Je w is h national state in re action to th e continuing h ostility tow ards Je w s th at did not re ce de w ith th e cre ation of th e bourgois national state s and th e prom is e of e q uality th at h ad be e n as sociate d w ith it. Th e h ope of th e Je w s of e m ancipation and of an e nd to re s e ntm e nt and pe rs e cution fade d aw ay during th is tim e . Insofar, Z ionism w as a cons e q ue nt re action to anti-Se m itism w h ich gre w to a Je w is h m ass m ove m e nt during th e ris e of th e pe rs e cution of th e Je w s in Ge rm any in th e 19 30s ,and in 19 48 e ve ntually re sulte d in th e founding of Israe l. Th e cre ation of a Je w is h state in w h ich Je w s w ould be m ost poss ibly safe from anti-Se m itism and in w h ich th e y’d h ave th e poss ibility to de fe nd th e m s e lve s m ilitarily against it w as a ne ce s sary cons e q ue nce of th e pe rs e cution of th e Je w s w h ich found an atrocious clim ax in th e industrial m ass m urde r of s ix-m illion Je w s by th e Ge rm ans . Furth e rm ore , th e foundation of th e nation state of Israe l w as also th e only fe as ible cons e q ue nce in a w orld th at w as not w illing to up-root th e caus e s of anti-Se m itism once and for all. It m ust be note d th at th e e xte rm ination of th e Europe an Je w s h ad of cours e not tak e n place as part of th e m urde rous w ar-and occupation policy of th e Nazis but w as an e nd in its e lf in an ide ology of w h ich h atre d w as th e m ain m otor. Th e e xiste nce of th e Je w is h state is th e bas is for e ach form of e m ancipatory policy th at s e e k s to ove rcom e th e conditions th at m ade Aussch w itz poss ible and th at s e e k s to cre ate circum stance s unde r w h ich m an is a frie nd of m an. In a w orld organis e d in nation state s only th e e xiste nce of Israe l can guarante e th e survival of Je w s . Th is h olds true e ve n if one oth e rw is e re je cts th e construct of th e nation for good re asons . In oth e r w ords : You can’t h ave anti-fascist policy w ith out solidarity w ith Israe l.

Not le ast be caus e of th is th e m e re plan of a Je w is h state w as attack e d by various anti-s e m ite s . Je w s could only live as a “th ird party” q uas i as paras ite s w ith in, and of oth e r nations . Th e y w ouln’t be able to build th e ir ow n nation state as th e y w e re n’t capable of form ing a com m unity rath e r th e y e m bodie d a socie ty ch aracte ris e d by s e lf inte re st, m one y, pow e r, e xploitation and inte rnationalism th at w asn’t viable on its ow n. Th e s e ste re otype s w ith w h ich th e poss ibility and justification of Israe ls e xiste nce are be ing ne gate d now adays live on in th e re fe re nce s re pe ate d as in a praye r m ill, to th e inne r struggle of Israe l and th e Israe lis : Th is w as th e cas e for e xam ple w h e n an inne r-Israe li civil w ar w as e vok e d be fore th e vacation of th e s e ttle m e nts in th e Gaza-strip. W is h ful th ink ing w h ich w as de bunk e d as such by th e actual cours e of th e w ith draw al as Israe l s ince 2005 is not at all s h ak e n by inne r te ns ions but is unabate dly be ing attack e d by th e suppos e dly victorious anti-s e m ite s in th e ne igh bouring countrie s in particular th e H isbollah acting from Le banon and finance d by Syria and Iran.

In front of th e back ground of th e suppos e d incapability of Je w s to build a state Israe l could ne ve r be com pre h e nde d as a norm al nation state by anti-s e m ite s of any s h ade . Its nam e is put in q uotation m ark s , is w ritte n of as a “so calle d state ” and is pre fe rably be ing de picte d as an im pe rialistic bulw ark . Th is alle gation is be ing e xte nde d by th e claim th at a Je w is h state is re ally only an inte rnational pow e r bas e .

5

Th e Z ionists are claim e d to be am ong th e Am e rican m onopolists and to s e rve Am e rican im pe rialism . Th is conjunction be tw e e n Israe l (or Je w s) w ith th e Unite d State s as a ch iffre for an alle ge dly particularly brutal m ode rnisation and th e e pitom e of capitalism clarifie s th e close ne s s be tw e e n anti-Se m itism and anti-am e ricanism .

Anti-Z ionism is Anti-Se m itism

A fundam e ntal fe ature of th e anti-Z ionist anti-Se m itism w h ich h as th e w e ak e ning and ultim ate ly th e e xtinction of th e Je w is h state as its goal is furth e rm ore , th e re place m e nt of th e “Je w ” by th e “Z ionist” w h ich is be ing e q uate d w ith th e “im pe rialist” or “racist”. By th is , one can conte ntw is e tie on th e anti-s e m itic tradition of th e e q uation of Je w s w ith capitalism , ye t, can e m ploy a vocabulary th at is trade able apart from Nazi and Islam ic coh e re nce s as w e ll. A particularly audacious e xam ple for th is w as give n by th e pe riodical of th e USSR’s e m bassy in Paris in 19 72 th at re -publis h e d e xce rpts from an article of 19 06 w h ilst s im ply e xch anging th e w ords “Je w ” and “Z ionist”. Th is sort of disguis e w as particularly ne ce s sary afte r th e Sh oah in orde r to s h ie ld one s e lf from th e adm onition of anti-Se m itism and to politically e stablis h anti-zionism on th e le ft. Against th e back ground of th e e xte rm ination of th e Je w s by th e Nazis e ach anti-s e m ite h ad th e proble m to justify h is attitude . As an ope n de nial of th e h olocaust is out of q ue stion by pe ople on th e le ft-alth ough th is de nial is re ce ntly not confronte d anym ore w h e n e xpre s s e d by Islam ists -a re ve rsal of pe rpe trator and victim is carrie d out in w h ich it is alle ge d th at Je w s w ant to e xploit th e h olocaust. Th e Ch arta of H am as e m ploys th e sam e tactic by form ulating in Art.22 th at Je w s h ad instigate d W orld W ar II in orde r to pre pare th e founding of th e ir ow n state . Ayatollah Ch am e ne i pre te nde d in 2001 th at docum e nts e xist w h ich prove a close collaboration of Z ionists and Nazis in orde r to arous e sym path y for Israe l w ith th e us e of w rong num be rs about th e h olocaust.

Th e w e ste rn le ft also re pe ate dly e m ploys sym bols and vocabulary th at are cle arly conne cte d to Nazism and th e h olocaust for th e de fam ation of Israe l. Countle ss flye rs sw agge r of Israe ls “e xte rm ination w ar“ against th e Pale stinians , th e re spe ctive Israe li Prim e Ministe r is be ing furnis h e d w ith a H itle r-m oustach e , star of David and sw astik a are be ing put into one , num e rous oth e r e q uations of Je w s and Nazis are be ing carrie d out.

Th e s e conte ntw is e absurd com parisons are accom panie d by an alm ost path ological fixation of th e le ft w ith Israe l. No conflict on e arth re ce ive s th e sam e k ind of atte ntion as Israe ls conflicts w ith Pale stinians and its ne igh bouring state s . Murde ring islam ic m ilitias in Sudan, suicide bom be rs in Afgh anistan, Pak istan or Iraq , re ligious fanatics in India, pogrom s against re ligious dis s e nte rs in Indone s ia - none of th at arous e s any atte ntion am ong th e le ft. If Israe l h ow e ve r, as in th e sum m e r of 2006,invade s South e rn Le banon afte r be ing attack e d by th e H isbollah and puts up a figh t w ith th e cle rical-fascist m e rce nary troops of Iran for 4 w e e k s de m onstrations and rallie s are be ing organis e d at once , old flye rs are be ing re vam pe d in orde r to pos ition th e w ide r public against th e s e lf-de fe nce of Je w s . Sim ilar fe rvour is arous e d by th e e re ction of a fe nce be tw e e n Israe l and th e W e st Bank th e purpos e of w h ich is to inh ibit te rrorists from re ach ing th e ir de stinations in Je rusale m , Te l Aviv, H aifa and e lse w h e re . Th e organic m e taph or of th e “barrie r cutting de e p into Pale stinian te rritory” be ing us e d in th is conte xt, re pe ate dly e xpre s s e s th e biologistic-re actionary h allucinations of a “Volk s k örpe r”(Th e body of pe ople ) and th e land as its its “le be nsraum ”of its auth ors .

Poor=good, rich =e vil

Th e ove rw h e lm ing sym path y w ith Pale stinians and th e Arabs living around Israe l can also be put dow n to a m isunde rstood Marxism w h ich accords unconditional solidarity to th e poor and e ns h rine s h im as a re volutionary subje ct. Th e rich on th e oth e r h and are alw ays th e e xploite rs w h ich m ust be fough t. Starting from th is point th e distribution of goods be tw e e n Israe l and th e Pale stinians or Arabs only th e figh t against th e Je w s can appe ar justifie d. In th e cours e of th is contradictions and class diffe re nce s in th e Arabic socie tie s are ignore d but e spe cially is a progre s s ive dispos ition of th e m ate rially unde rprivile ge d be ing h allucinate d about. Each e ve r so barbaric assault is be ing le gitim ate d w ith th e re fe re nce to poor living conditions violate d pride and ange r about th e “occupying pow e r” w h e re as th e unde r-lying ide ology of a longing for de ath s e lf-abandonm e nt and a pe ople ’s com m unity, th e m ajor aim of w h ich is th e e xte rm ination of Je w s , is not be ing q ue stione d. Th e orie ntation along th e “poor=good, rich =e vil form ula m anipulate s th e vie w on re ality and m ak e s a criticism of th e Islam ic im poss ible . A policy alw ays h as to be m e asure d by its m e ans and goals, h ow e ve r. If suicide bom bings are th e m e ans and th e e xte rm ination of Israe l and w ith it of anoth e r s ix m illion Je w s or e ve n only th e cre ation of a Je w -fre e Z one in Gaza and th e W e st Bank are th e goals, th is policy is running contrary to any socie tal e m ancipation.

Th e apologie s of suicide bom bings and Islam ic m urde r gangs as acts and actors of re s istance are also e xplaine d by th e pow e rle s sne s s of th e w e ste rn le ft. In th e face of th e ir ow n irre le vance and th e ir ow n incapability to ch ange anyth ing, m any h ave allow e d th e m s e lve s to be dum be d dow n th e pow e r of th e ir oppos ition and th e ir ow n im pote nce . Into e ach idiot to tak e up a gun th e rom anticis e d ide a of a gue rrilla figh t against “th e rule rs” is proje cte d. D e te rm ination and de fiance of de ath im pre s s so m uch th at m otive s and conte nt don’t m atte r anym ore ”national libe ration” be com e s s e lf-s e rving. In th e face of doze ns of e th nicitie s and oth e r folk loristic groups constantly discove ring th e m s e lve s , h ow e ve r, e ve n th e obs e s s ion w ith m ilitancy of th e le ft can not ade q uate ly e xplain th e fixation on Israe l. O ne can only conclude th at only th e conce ntration of anti-s e m ite s on th e obje ct of th e ir de s ire can e xplain th e im m e ns e criticism th at e ach of Israe l’s actions arous e s .

A le ft w ing policy de s e rving its nam e m ust - be s ide s th e ability to be critical of its ow n m istak e s - also be pre pare d to confront re actionary libe ration m ove m e nts . Afte r th e Sh oah as th e m ost e xce s s ive rupture of civilisation in h istory, as th e antipode of e ach e m ancipatory m ove m e nt, tak ing th e s ide s of Israe l’s e ne m ie s com ple te ly rule d out for anti-fascist re asons .

“Israe l is th e state w h os e e ntire function is th e de fe nce of Je w is h life . If Je w s w e re to lose th is D e fe nce th e y‘d again be subje ct to th e m oods of anti-s e m ite s and oth e r prole tarians of all countrie s . If one de s ire s to attack th e pow e r of state s one h as tw o-h undre d of th e m to ch oos e from w orldw ide . A le ft w h ich of its ow n stre ngth is incapable of alm ost anyth ing s h ould at le ast re frain from e ve ryth ing th at could infringe on Israe l’s figh t for its e xiste nce . (Gre m zlia, k onk re t 5/02).

W h e n w orst com e s to w orst

In th e ve ry spot w h e re a s e le ctive criticism of capitalism th e ide al of a (cle rical-fascist) “Volk sge m e insch aft” and an obs e s s ion w ith m ilitancy ble nd into one curre ntly stands Islam ism . Its partial proxim ity to Nazism be com e s appare nt w ith th e offe ns ive de nial of th e h olocaust and th e invitation of inte rnationally k now n ne o-Nazis to a confe re nce in

6

Te h e ran at th e late st. A de nial re store s th e poss ibility of th e h olocaust as its non-e xiste nce m e ant th at th e cons e q ue nce s of th e Sh oah did’t h ave to be draw n.

Th is affinity is not ne w , h ow e ve r, th e m ufti of Je rusale m w as a close ally of H itle r in th e figh t against Je w s . Cons e q ue ntly, th e re asons for th is alliance are not only of strate gical but also of a conte ntual nature : In th e ir origin both Islam ism and Nazism re fe r to a organic socie ty im agine d to be organic and fre e of contradictions (th e “Volk sge m e insch aft” in one cas e , th e Um m a in th e oth e r one ) w h ich is m ainly be ing th re ate ne d by e xte rior influe nce s . Th e gre ate st such influe nce is th e individualistic and h e donistic (“w e ste rn”) w ay of life be ing vilifie d as “de cade nt” th at m isle ads th e individual into indulge nce and e njoym e nt of life and w h ich unde rm ine s h is e ffort for and h is subm is s ion unde r th e colle ctive (th e age nts of w h ich are th e Je w s). Th e prim acy of com m unity, an obs e s s ion w ith w ork and asce ticism all contradict th e e m ancipatory, individual s e lf-fullfillm e nt and th e Marxist goal of w e lfare and de ve lopm e nt for e ve rybody. None th e le s s , th e Islam ic Inte rnational e njoys th e support and sym path y of m any groups cons ide ring th e m s e lve s as le ft-w ing. Th os e groups in turn s e e m any of th e ir proje ctions and w is h e s be ing re alis e d by th e various te rror-gangs be th e y H am as , H isbollah or Al-Kaida. ”Ne gligibilitie s” as th e disfranch is e m e nt and subm is s ion of w om e n, th e h atre d for h om os e xuals and not le ast th e fanatic anti-Se m itism are be ing aw are ly ignore d in th e proce s s . Th e re m ust not be a place for such groups in a progre s s ive m ove m e nt, h ow e ve r. Th e y m ust be fough t as vigorously as th e oth e r ally of Islam ism : Europe an ne o-Nazis .

Th e anti-globalisation m ove m e nt and th e Islam ic m ove m e nt are of cours e not to be e q uate d. Th e re are h ow e ve r, de finite ly ide ological points of contact w h ich unfortunate ly are not e xh auste d w ith appre ciative re fe re nce s to alle ge d insults of Islam ic culture afte r e ach Islam ic outburst of viole nce by th e w e st. Th e ide ological s im ilaritie s w ith Islam ic te rror are rath e r incre as ingly be ing discove re d and propagate d by parts of th e w e ste rn le ft. W ith th e “10Euros for Iraq i re s istance ” cam paign of Europe an anti-im pe rialists th is inte lle ctual close ne s s h as alre ady de ve lope d into a stalw art coope ration.

Th e s e e fforts - as w e ll as th e idolis ing re fe re nce to oth e r anti-s e m itic m urde r-s q uads - e ncounte rs alarm ingly little re s istance w ith in th e m ove m e nt. In orde r not to e ndange r th e capabilitie s of m obilisation in advance of big e ve nts as th e G8 sum m it th at only poss e s s e s th e om nipote nce ascribe d to it in its false analys is critical voice s m ostly fall s ile nt q uick ly.

As long as a m isguide d and w rong analys is of capitalism and w ith it of its criticism pre vails th e anti-globalisation m ove m e nt can not be cons ide re d as a ste p in th e righ t dire ction tow ard th e re alisation of an “association of fre e pe ople ” but h as to be s e e n as a re form ist m ostly state - and policy fixate d m ove m e nt to w h ich a pote ntial of re actionary barbarity is inh e re nt w h ich could e rupt at any instance . To tak e th e ove rth row of th e e xisting conditions s e riously m e ans to acce pt th e totality of capitalism inste ad of m ainly focus ing on th e circulation sph e re and on pillow ing big bus ine s s . Th is broch ure w ants to advance th is urge ntly ne ce s sary ste p.W e w is h you fruitful re ading.

7

As is w e ll k now n, th e pe riod s ince th e e arly 19 70s h as be e n one of m ass ive h istorical structural transform ations of th e global orde r, fre q ue ntly re fe rre d to as th e trans ition from Fordism to post-Fordism (or, be tte r, from Fordism to post-Fordism to ne olibe ral global capitalism ). Th is transform ation of social, e conom ic, and cultural life , w h ich h as e ntaile d th e unde rm ining of th e state -ce ntric orde r of th e m id – tw e ntie th ce ntury, h as be e n as fundam e ntal as th e e arlie r trans ition from nine te e nth -ce ntury libe ral capitalism to th e state inte rve ntionist, bure aucratic form s of th e tw e ntie th ce ntury.

Th e s e proce s s e s h ave e ntaile d far-re ach ing ch ange s in not only W e ste rn capitalist countrie s but com m unist countrie s as w e ll, and le d to th e collapse of th e Sovie t Union and Europe an com m unism in addition to fundam e ntal transform ations in Ch ina. Cons e q ue ntly, th e y h ave be e n inte rpre te d as m ark ing th e e nd of Marxism and of th e th e ore tical re le vance of Marx’s critical th e ory. And ye t th e s e proce s s e s of h istorical transform ation h ave also re as s e rte d th e ce ntral im portance of h istorical dynam ics and large -scale structural ch ange s . Th is proble m atic, w h ich is at th e h e art of Marx’s critical th e ory, is pre cis e ly th at w h ich e lude s th e grasp of th e m ajor th e orie s of th e im m e diate post-Fordist e ra — th os e of Mich e l Foucault, Jacq ue s D e rrida, and Jürge n H abe rm as . Re ce nt transform ations h ave re ve ale d th os e th e orie s to h ave be e n re trospe ctive , focus e d critically on th e Fordist e ra, but no longe r ade q uate to th e conte m porary post-Fordist w orld. Em ph as izing th e proble m atic of h istorical dynam ics and transform ations casts a diffe re nt ligh t on a num be r of im portant is sue s . In th is e s say I be gin to addre s s ge ne ral q ue stions of inte rnationalism and political m obilization today in re lation to th e m ass ive h istorical ch ange s of th e past th re e de cade s . Be fore doing so, h ow e ve r, I s h all brie fly touch upon s e ve ral oth e r im portant is sue s th at be com e infle cte d diffe re ntly w h e n cons ide re d against th e back ground of re ce nt ove rarch ing h istorical transform ations : th e q ue stion of th e re lation of de m ocracy to capitalism and its poss ible h istorical ne gation — m ore ge ne rally, of th e re lation of h istorical continge ncy (and, h e nce , politics) to ne ce s s ity — and th e q ue stion of th e h istorical ch aracte r of Sovie t com m unism . Th e structural transform ations of re ce nt de cade s h ave e ntaile d th e re ve rsal of w h at h ad appe are d to be a logic of incre as ing state -ce ntrism . Th e y th e re by call into q ue stion line ar notions of h istorical de ve lopm e nt — w h e th e r Marxist or W e be rian. Ne ve rth e le s s , large -scale h istorical patte rns of th e “long tw e ntie th ce ntury,” such as th e ris e of Fordism out of th e cris is of nine te e nth -ce ntury libe ral capitalism and th e m ore re ce nt de m is e of th e Fordist synth e s is , sugge st th at an ove rarch ing patte rn of h istorical de ve lopm e nt doe s e xist in capitalism . Th is im plie s , in turn, th at th e scope of h istorical continge ncy is constraine d by th at form of social life . Politics alone , such as th e diffe re nce s be tw e e n cons e rvative and social de m ocratic gove rnm e nts , cannot e xplain w h y, for e xam ple , re gim e s e ve ryw h e re in th e W e st, re gardle ss of th e party in pow e r, de e pe ne d and e xpande d w e lfare state institutions in th e 19 50s , 19 60s , and e arly 19 70s , only to cut back such program s and structure s in subs e q ue nt de cade s . Th e re h ave be e n diffe re nce s be tw e e n various gove rnm e nts’ policie s , of cours e , but th e y h ave be e n diffe re nce s in de gre e rath e r th an in k ind. Such large -scale h istorical patte rns , I w ould argue , are ultim ate ly roote d in th e dynam ics of capital and h ave be e n large ly ove rlook e d

in discuss ions of de m ocracy as w e ll as in de bate s on th e m e rits of social coordination by planning ve rsus th at e ffe cte d by m ark e ts . Th e s e h istorical patte rns im ply a de gre e of constraint, of h istorical ne ce s s ity. Ye t atte m pting to com e to grips w ith th is sort of ne ce s s ity ne e d not re ify it. O ne of Marx’s im portant contributions w as to provide a h istorically spe cific grounding for such ne ce s s ity, th at is , for large -scale patte rns of capitalist de ve lopm e nt, in de te rm inate form s of social practice e xpre s s e d by cate gorie s such as com m odity and capital. In so doing, Marx graspe d such patte rns as e xpre s s ions of h istorically spe cific form s of h e te ronom y th at constrain th e scope of political de cis ions and, h e nce , of de m ocracy. H is analys is im plie s th at ove rcom ing capital e ntails m ore th an ove rcom ing th e lim its to de m ocratic politics th at re sult from syste m ically grounde d e xploitation and ine q uality; it also e ntails ove rcom ing de te rm inate structural constraints on action, th e re by e xpanding th e re alm of h istorical continge ncy and, re late dly, th e h orizon of politics . To th e de gre e w e ch oos e to us e “inde te rm inacy” as a critical social cate gory, th e n, it s h ould be as a goal of social and political action rath e r th an as an ontological ch aracte ristic of social life . (Th e latte r is h ow it te nds to be pre s e nte d in poststructuralist th ough t, w h ich can be re garde d as a re ifie d re spons e to a re ifie d unde rstanding of h istorical ne ce s s ity.) Pos itions th at ontologize h istorical inde te rm inacy e m ph as ize th at fre e dom and continge ncy are re late d. H ow e ve r, th e y ove rlook th e constraints on continge ncy e xe rte d by capital as a structuring form of social life and are , for th is re ason, ultim ate ly inade q uate as critical th e orie s of th e pre s e nt. W ith in th e fram e w ork I am pre s e nting, th e notion of h istorical inde te rm inacy can be re appropriate d as th at w h ich be com e s poss ible w h e n th e constraints e xe rte d by capital are ove rcom e . Social de m ocracy w ould th e n re fe r to atte m pts to am e liorate ine q uality w ith in th e fram e w ork of th e ne ce s s ity im pos e d structurally by capital. Alth ough inde te rm inate , a postcapitalist social form of life could aris e only as a h istorically de te rm inate poss ibility ge ne rate d by th e inte rnal te ns ions of capital, not as a “tige r’s le ap” out of h istory. A s e cond ge ne ral is sue rais e d by re ce nt h istorical transform ations is th at of th e Sovie t Union and com m unism , of “actually e xisting socialism .” Re trospe ctive ly, it can be argue d th at th e ris e and fall of th e USSR w as intrins ically re late d to th e ris e and fall of state -ce ntric capitalism . Th e h istorical transform ations of re ce nt de cade s sugge st th at th e Sovie t Union w as ve ry m uch part of a large r h istorical configuration of th e capitalist social form ation, h ow e ve r gre at th e h ostility be tw e e n th e USSR and W e ste rn capitalist countrie s h ad be e n. Th is is sue is close ly re late d to th at of inte rnationalism and antih e ge m onic politics , th e th e m e of th is e s say. Th e collapse of th e Sovie t Union and th e e nd of th e Cold W ar ope ne d th e poss ibility of a re invigorate d inte rnationalism th at is globally critical. Such an inte rnationalism w ould be ve ry diffe re nt from th os e form s of “inte rnationalism ” ch aracte ristic of th e long Cold W ar, w h ich w e re e s s e ntially dualistic and, in te rm s of th e ir form , nationalistic; th e y w e re critical of one “cam p” in w ays th at s e rve d as a le gitim ating ide ology for th e oth e r, rath e r th an re garding both “cam ps” as parts of a large r w h ole th at s h ould h ave be e n th e obje ct of critiq ue . W ith in th is fram e w ork , th e post-19 45 w orld containe d only one im pe rialist pow e r — th e h e ge m on w ith in th e oth e r “cam p.” Th is bas ic patte rn also h olds true for supporte rs of Ch ina follow ing th e Sino-Sovie t split, w ith th e diffe re nce th at th e oth e r “cam p” w as constitute d by tw o im pe rialist

Moish e Postone

pow e rs - th e Unite d State s and th e USSR. Ne ve rth e le s s , th e critiq ue of im pe rialism re m aine d dualistic: a critiq ue of one cam p from th e standpoint of anoth e r cam p. Ye t th e first de cade of th e tw e nty-first ce ntury h as not be e n m ark e d by th e strong e m e rge nce of a post – Cold W ar form of inte rnationalism . Inste ad it h as Public Culture 9 6 s e e n a re surge nce of olde r form s , of h ollow e d-out afte r-form s of Cold W ar “inte rnationalism .” Th is e s say pre s e nts som e ve ry pre lim inary re fle ctions on th is re surge nt dualistic “inte rnationalism ,” as an e xpre s s ion of an im pass e re ach e d by m any antih e ge m onic m ove m e nts , w h ile re fle cting critically on diffe re nt form s of political viole nce . Th e im pass e to w h ich I am re fe rring h as be e n dram atize d re ce ntly by m any re spons e s on th e Le ft, in th e Unite d State s and in Europe , to th e suicide bom bing of th e W orld Trade Ce nte r on Se pte m be r 11, 2001, as w e ll as by th e ch aracte r of th e m ass m obilizations against th e Iraq W ar. Th e disastrous nature of th e w ar and, m ore ge ne rally, of th e Bus h adm inistration s h ould not obscure th at in both cas e s progre s s ive s found th e m s e lve s face d w ith w h at s h ould h ave be e n vie w e d as a dile m m a — a conflict be tw e e n an aggre s s ive global im pe rial pow e r and a de e ply re actionary counte rglobalization m ove m e nt in one cas e , and a brutal fascistic re gim e in th e oth e r. Ye t in ne ith e r cas e w e re th e re m any atte m pts to proble m atize th is dile m m a or to try to analyze th is configuration w ith an e ye tow ard th e poss ibility of form ulating w h at h as be com e e xce e dingly difficult in th e w orld today — a critiq ue w ith e m ancipatory inte nt. Th is w ould h ave re q uire d de ve loping a form of inte rnationalism th at brok e w ith th e dualism s of a Cold W ar fram e w ork th at all too fre q ue ntly le gitim ate d (as “anti-im pe rialist”) state s w h os e structure s and policie s w e re no m ore e m ancipatory th an th os e of m any auth oritarian and re pre s s ive re gim e s supporte d by th e Am e rican gove rnm e nt. Inste ad of bre ak ing w ith such dualism s , h ow e ve r, m any w h o oppos e d Am e rican policie s h ave h ad re cours e to pre cis e ly such inade q uate and anach ronistic “anti-im pe rialist” conce ptual fram e w ork s and political stance s . At th e h e art

of th is ne o-anti-im pe rialism is a fe tis h istic unde rstanding of global de ve lopm e nt — th at is , a concre tistic unde rstanding of abstract h istorical proce s s e s in political and age ntive te rm s . Th e abstract and dynam ic dom ination of capital h as be com e fe tis h ize d on th e global le ve l as th at of th e Unite d State s , or, in som e variants , as th at of th e Unite d State s and Israe l. It goe s w ith out saying th at th e disastrous , im pe rial, and im pe rious ch aracte r of th e Bus h adm inistration h as h e lpe d m igh tily in th is conflation. Ne ve rth e le s s , it is unfortunate ly ironic th at, in m any re spe cts , th is w orldvie w re capitulate s one of a ce ntury ago in w h ich th e subje ct pos itions of th e Unite d State s and Israe l w e re occupie d by Britain and th e Je w s . H ow e ve r counte rintuitive th is s im ilarity — be tw e e n a critiq ue of h e ge m ony today th at unde rstands its e lf as a critiq ue from th e Le ft and w h at h ad be e n a righ tist critiq ue of h e ge m ony — it points to ove rlapping fe tis h ize d unde rstandings of th e w orld and sugge sts th at such unde rstandings h ave ve ry ne gative cons e q ue nce s for th e constitution of ade q uate antih e ge m onic politics today.

Th is re aw ak e ne d Manich ae ism — w h ich is at odds w ith oth e r form s of antiglobalization, such as th e antisw e ats h op m ove m e nt, th at de ve lope d ove r th e pre vious de cade — h as be e n accom panie d by th e re appe arance of a de e p confus ion re garding political viole nce th at h ad, at tim e s , plague d th e Ne w Le ft. Th e re sult is a form of oppos ition th at h igh ligh ts som e difficultie s face d by antih e ge m onic m ove m e nts in form ulating an ade q uate critiq ue in th e post-Fordist e ra. Th is dualistic form of antih e ge m onic oppos ition is not ade q uate to th e conte m porary w orld and, in som e cas e s , can e ve n s e rve as a le gitim ating ide ology for w h at a h undre d ye ars ago w ould h ave be e n te rm e d im pe rialist rivalrie s . Le t m e e laborate by first turning brie fly to th e w ays in w h ich m any libe rals and progre s s ive s re sponde d to th e attack of Se pte m be r 11. Th e m ost ge ne ral argum e nt m ade w as th at th e action, as h orrible as it m ay h ave be e n, h ad to be unde rstood as a re action to Am e rican policie s , e spe cially in th e Middle East.1 W h ile it is th e cas e th at te rrorist viole nce s h ould be unde rstood as political (and not s im ply as an irrational act), th e unde rstanding of th e politics of viole nce e xpre s s e d by such argum e nts is , ne ve rth e le s s , utte rly inade q uate . Such viole nce is unde rstood as a re action of th e insulte d, injure d, and dow ntrodde n, not as an action. W h ile th e viole nce its e lf is not ne ce s sarily affirm e d, th e politics of th e spe cific form of viole nce com m itte d are rare ly inte rrogate d. Inste ad, th e viole nce is e xplaine d (and at tim e s im plicitly justifie d) as a re spons e . W ith in th is sch e m a, th e re is only one actor in th e w orld: th e Unite d State s . Th is sort of argum e nt focus e s on th e grie vance s of th os e w h o carry out such actions w ith out e ngaging th e fram e w ork of m e aning w ith in w h ich th os e grie vance s are e xpre s s e d. Th e actions th at flow from th os e m e anings are tak e n s im ply as e xpre s s ions of ange r, h ow e ve r unfortunate .2 Such argum e nts ne ith e r inte rrogate

1. Th e follow ing article s are e xe m plary of th e sort of pos ition I am outlining: Naom i Kle in, “Gam e Ove r,” Nation, O ctobe r 1, 2001, w w w.th e nation.com /doc/20011001/k le in; Robe rt Fis k , “Te rror in Am e rica,” Nation, O ctobe r 1, 2001, 7, w w w.th e nation.com /doc/20011001/fis k ; Noam Ch om s k y, “A Quick Re action,” Counte rpunch , Se pte m be r 12, 2001, w w w.counte rpunch .org/ ch om s k ybom b.h tm l; H ow ard Z inn, “Viole nce Doe sn’t W ork ,” Progre s s ive , Se pte m be r 14, 2001, w w w .progre s s ive .org/w e be x/w xzinn09 1401.h tm l.

2. Th e abs e nce of any sustaine d critical analys is of m ove m e nts such as al-Qae da or H am as , or of re gim e s such as th os e of Baath ist Iraq or Syria, sugge sts th at th is sort of “ch ick e ns com e h om e to roost” pos ition involve s th e proje ction of political oppos ition to Am e rican policie s by W e ste rn critics onto th e actors in th e Middle East. Th e suffe ring and m isère of th os e actors are tak e n s e riously, but th e ir politics and ide ologie s are brack e te d.8

9

th e unde rstanding of th e w orld th at m otivate d th is viole nce nor critically analyze th e sort of politics im plie d by viole nce dire cte d inte ntionally against civilians . Cons e q ue ntly, such argum e nts can be com e im plicitly apologe tic rath e r th an political th e y m ak e little atte m pt to unde rstand th e strate gic calculations involve d — not so m uch of th e bom be rs as of th e ir h andle rs — and ignore is sue s of ide ology. It is a s e rious e rror, for e xam ple , to inte rpre t th e fe lt grie vance s unde rlying a m ove m e nt lik e al-Qae da in narrow te rm s , as an im m e diate re action to Am e rican policie s and Israe li policie s . Th is ignore s too m any oth e r dim e ns ions of th e ne w jih adism . For e xam ple , w h e n O sam a bin Lade n spe ak s of th e blow inflicte d on th e Muslim s e igh ty ye ars ago, h e is not re fe rring to th e founding of th e state of Israe l but to th e abolition of th e caliph ate (and, h e nce , of th e purporte d unity of th e Muslim w orld) by Ataturk in 19 24 — long be fore th e Unite d State s w as involve d in th e Middle East and be fore Israe l w as e stablis h e d. It is note w orth y th at th e vis ion h e e xpre s s e s is m ore global th an local, w h ich is one of th e salie nt fe ature s of th e ne w jih adism , in te rm s of both th e struggle s it supports (transform ing th e m into m anife stations of a s ingle struggle ) and its driving ide ology. And an im portant aspe ct of th e global ch aracte r of th at ide ology h as be e n anti-Se m itism . Addre s s ing anti-Se m itism is crucially im portant w h e n cons ide ring is sue s of globalization and antiglobalization, e ve n if it can be subje ct to m isunde rstandings be caus e of th e de gre e to w h ich th e ch arge of anti-Se m itism h as be e n us e d as an ide ology of le gitim ation by Israe li re gim e s in orde r to discre dit all se rious criticism s of Israe li policie s . It is ce rtainly poss ible to form ulate a fundam e ntal critiq ue of th os e policie s th at is not anti-Se m itic, and, inde e d, m any such critiq ue s h ave be e n form ulate d. O n th e oth e r h and, criticism of Israe l s h ould not blind one to th e e xiste nce today of w ide spre ad and virule nt anti-Se m itism in th e Arab/ Muslim w orld. As I w ill try to e laborate , anti-Se m itism pos e s a ve ry de te rm inate proble m for th e Le ft. Th e afte rm ath of Se pte m be r 11 re ve ale d th e de gre e to w h ich anti-Se m itic m otifs h ave be com e w ide spre ad in th e Arab w orld. (In th is e s say I w ill not also addre s s th e is sue of re surge nt anti-Se m itism and im plicit H olocaust de nial in Europe .) Expre s s ions of th is ide ology include th e ide a — w ide spre ad in th e Middle East — th at only th e Je w s could h ave organize d th e attack on th e W orld Trade Ce nte r, and th e w ide spre ad dis s e m ination in th e Arab w orld of th e Protocols of th e Elde rs of Z ion — th e infam ous czarist fabrication distribute d w ide ly in th e first h alf of th e tw e ntie th ce ntury by th e Nazis and H e nry Ford, purporting to e xpos e th e Je w is h conspiracy to rule th e w orld. Th e e xte ns ive and inte ns ive spre ad of such global conspiratorial th ough t w as dram atically re ve ale d re ce ntly by th e Egyptian te le vis ion s e rie s H ors e m an w ith out a H ors e , w h ich m ade us e of th e Protocols of th e Elde rs of Z ion as a h istorical source , and th e spre ad in th e Arab m e dia of m e die val Ch ristian blood libe l ch arge s — th at Je w s k ill non-Je w is h ch ildre n in orde r to us e th e ir blood for ritual purpos e s .

Th is de ve lopm e nt s h ould be tak e n s e riously. It s h ould ne ith e r be tre ate d as a som e w h at e xagge rate d m anife station of an unde rstandable re action to Israe li and Am e rican policie s , nor s h ould it be brack e te d as a re sult of th e dualistically grounde d fe ar th at focus ing on it can only furth e r Israe li occupation of th e W e st Bank and Gaza. Grasping its political s ignificance , h ow e ve r, re q uire s unde rstanding m ode rn anti-Se m itism . O n th e one h and, m ode rn anti-Se m itism is a form of e s s e ntializing discours e th at, lik e all such form s , unde rstands social and h istorical ph e nom e na in biologistic or culturalistic te rm s . O n th e oth e r h and, anti-Se m itism can be distinguis h e d from oth e r e s s e ntializing form s , such as m ost form s of racism , by its populist and appare ntly antih e ge m onic, antiglobal ch aracte r.

W h e re as m ost form s of race th ink ing com m only im pute concre te bodily and s e xual pow e r to th e O th e r, m ode rn anti-Se m itism attribute s e norm ous pow e r to Je w s , w h ich is abstract, unive rsal, global, and intangible . At th e h e art of m ode rn anti-Se m itism is a notion of th e Je w s as an im m e ns e ly pow e rful, s e cre t inte rnational conspiracy. I h ave argue d e lse w h e re th at th e m ode rn anti-Se m itic w orldvie w unde rstands th e abstract dom ination of capital — w h ich subje cts pe ople to th e com pulsion of m yste rious force s th e y cannot pe rce ive — as th e dom ination of Inte rnational Je w ry. Anti-Se m itism , cons e q ue ntly, can appe ar to be antih e ge m onic. Th is is th e re ason w h y a ce ntury ago August Be be l, th e Ge rm an Social De m ocratic le ade r, ch aracte rize d it as th e socialism of fools. Give n its subs e q ue nt de ve lopm e nt, it could also h ave be e n calle d th e anti-im pe rialism of fools. As a fe tis h ize d form of oppos itional consciousne s s , it is particularly dange rous be caus e it appe ars to be antih e ge m onic, th e e xpre s s ion of a m ove m e nt of th e little pe ople against an intangible , global form of dom ination. It is as a fe tis h ize d, profoundly re actionary form of anti-capitalism th at I w ould lik e to be gin discuss ing th e re ce nt surge of m ode rn anti-Se m itism in th e Arab W orld. It is a s e rious m istak e to vie w th is surge of anti-Se m itism only as a re spons e to th e Unite d State s and Israe l. Th is e m piricistic re duction w ould be ak in to e xplaining Nazi anti-Se m itism s im ply as a re action to th e Tre aty of Ve rsaille s . W h ile Am e rican and Israe li policie s h ave doubtle ssly contribute d to th e ris e of th is ne w w ave of anti-Se m itism , th e Unite d State s and Israe l occupy subje ct pos itions in th e ide ology th at go far be yond th e ir actual e m pirical role s . Th os e pos itions , I w ould argue , m ust also be unde rstood w ith re fe re nce to th e m ass ive h istorical transform ations s ince th e e arly 19 70s , to th e trans ition from Fordism to post-Fordism . An im portant aspe ct of th is trans ition h as be e n th e incre as ing im portance of supranational (as oppos e d to inte rnational) e conom ic ne tw ork s and flow s, w h ich h as be e n accom panie d by a de cline in e ffe ctive national sove re ignty — by th e Public Culture 1 0 0 grow ing inability of national state structure s (including th os e of national m e tropole s) to succe s sfully control e conom ic proce s s e s . Th is h as be e n m anife ste d by th e de cline of th e Ke yne s ian w e lfare state in th e W e st and th e collapse of bure aucratic party state s in th e East. It h as be e n as sociate d w ith incre as ing ve rtical diffe re ntiation be tw e e n th e rich and th e poor w ith in all countrie s , and am ong countrie s and re gions . Th e collapse of Fordism h as m e ant th e e nd of th e ph as e of state -dire cte d, nationally bas e d de ve lopm e nt — w h e th e r on th e bas is of th e com m unist m ode l, th e social-de m ocratic m ode l, or th e statist-de ve lopm e ntalist Th ird W orld m ode l. Th is h as pos e d e norm ous difficultie s for m any countrie s and h uge conce ptual difficultie s for all th os e w h o vie w e d th e state as an age nt of pos itive ch ange and de ve lopm e nt. Th e e ffe cts of th e collapse of th e m idce ntury Fordist synth e s is h ave be e n diffe re ntial; th e y h ave varie d in diffe re nt parts of th e w orld. Th e re lative East As ian succe s s in riding th e ne w w ave of post-Fordist globalization is w e ll k now n, as is th e disastrous de cline of sub-Sah aran Africa. Le s s w e ll k now n is th e ste e p de cline of th e Arab w orld, w h ich w as dram atically re ve ale d in th e Unite d Nations Arab H um an D e ve lopm e nt Re port of 2002, according to w h ich pe r capita incom e in th e Arab w orld h as s h runk in th e past tw e nty ye ars to a le ve l just above th at of sub-Sah aran Africa. Eve n in Saudi Arabia, for e xam ple , th e pe r capita GDP fe ll from 24,000 in th e late 19 70s to 7,000 at th e be ginning of th is ce ntury. Th e re asons for th is de cline are com ple x. I w ould sugge st th at an im portant fram ing condition for th e re lative de cline of th e Arab/Muslim w orld h as be e n th e fundam e ntal h istorical re structuring allude d to above . For w h ate ve r re asons , th e auth oritarian state structure s as sociate d w ith th e Arab nationalism of th e postw ar Fordist e poch prove d incapable of adjusting to th e s e global transform ations . Th e s e transform ations , it could be argue d, w e ak e ne d and unde rm ine d Arab nationalism e ve n m ore th an did th e m ilitary loss to Israe l in 19 67. Such abstract

10

re action to Israe li policie s in Gaza and th e W e st Bank . Th is bas ically uncritical political stance , I w ould argue , is re late d to a fe tis h ize d ide ntification of th e Unite d State s w ith global capital. Th e re are m any im plications of th is conflation. O ne is th at oth e r pow e rs , such as th e Europe an Union, are not tre ate d critically as ris ing coh e ge m ons/com pe titors in a global capitalist dynam ic orde r, w h os e ris ing pos itions h e lp s h ape th e contours of global pow e r today. Rath e r, th e role of th e EU, for e xam ple , is brack e te d or Europe is im plicitly tre ate d as a h ave n of pe ace , unde rstanding, and social justice . Th is form of m isre cognition is re late d to th e te nde ncy to grasp th e abstract (th e dom ination of capital) as concre te (Am e rican h e ge m ony). Th is te nde ncy, I w ould argue , is an e xpre s s ion of a de e p and fundam e ntal h e lple ssne s s , conce ptually as w e ll as politically. Le t m e try to e laborate by re fle cting on th e m ass antiw ar m obilizations in so m any parts of th e w orld against th e Am e rican w ar in Iraq . At first glance , re ce nt m obilizations appe ar to be a re pris e of th e gre at antiw ar m ove m e nt of th e 19 60s . Ye t, I w ould argue , th e re are fundam e ntal diffe re nce s be tw e e n th e m . Cons ide ring th os e diffe re nce s m ay s h e d ligh t on th e curre nt im pass e of th e Le ft. Th e antiw ar m ove m e nts in th e 19 60s w e re spe arh e ade d by m any pe ople for w h om oppos ition to th e w ar w age d by th e Unite d State s in Vie tnam w as intrins ically re late d to a large r struggle for progre s s ive political and social ch ange . Th is , arguably, w as also th e cas e of m ove m e nts oppos e d to th e Am e rican policie s tow ard th e re gim e in Cuba, th e socialist gove rnm e nt in Ch ile , th e Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and th e ANC in South Africa. In all th e s e cas e s , th e Unite d State s w as re garde d as a cons e rvative force oppos e d to such ch ange . Am e rican oppos ition to m ove m e nts of national libe ration w as criticize d particularly strongly pre cis e ly be caus e such m ove m e nts w e re re garde d pos itive ly. It is th e cas e th at th e re w e re im portant diffe re nce s am ong th os e w h o re garde d m ove m e nts of national libe ration as force s for progre s s ive ch ange . O ne im portant diffe re nce w as be tw e e n th os e w h o re garde d such m ove m e nts pos itive ly be caus e th e y w e re s e e n to be at th e fore front of th e e xpans ion of th e “socialist cam p,” h e nce part of th e Cold W ar, and th os e for w h om such m ove m e nts w e re im portant be caus e th e y w e re re garde d as autoch th onous libe ration m ove m e nts th at unde rm ine d th e bipolarity of th e Cold W ar and w h os e pos itive re lation to th e USSR w as continge nt — a function of Am e rican h ostility. Ne ve rth e le s s , in spite of th e ir diffe re nce s , both ge ne ral pos itions h ad in com m on a pos itive e valuation of such m ove m e nts w ith in a global conte xt. Re gardle ss of h ow one judge s such pos itive e valuations today, th e n, w h at ch aracte rize d th e antiw ar m ove m e nts of a ge ne ration ago w as th at oppos ition to Am e rican policy w as , for m any, one e xpre s s ion of a m ore ge ne ral struggle for progre s s ive ch ange . Th e re ce nt m ass ive antiw ar m obilizations appe ar at first glance to be th e sam e . But close r cons ide ration re ve als th at, politically, th e y are ve ry diffe re nt. Th e ir oppos ition to th e Unite d State s h as not be e n in th e nam e of a m ore progre s s ive alte rnative . O n th e contrary, th e Baath re gim e in Iraq — a re gim e w h os e oppre s s ive ch aracte r and brutality far e xce e de d th at of, for e xam ple , th e m urde rous m ilitary re gim e s in Ch ile and Arge ntina in th e 19 70s and 19 80s — could not be cons ide re d progre s s ive or pote ntially progre s s ive in any w ay. It is th e cas e th at only a fe w s e ctarian groups lik e ANSW ER (th at, unfortunate ly, did e xe rt som e influe nce on th e large r antiw ar m ove m e nt) pos itive ly affirm e d th e re gim e of Saddam H us s e in. Ne ve rth e le s s , th at re gim e w as not and h ad not be e n th e obje ct of sustaine d political analys is and critiq ue on th e Le ft. Inste ad, its ne gative ch aracte r w as large ly brack e te d in th e form ulation of antiw ar pos itions . Th is m e ans , h ow e ve r, th at re ce nt antiw ar m obilizations no longe r h ad th e sam e sort of political m e aning th at th e antiw ar m ove m e nt h ad e arlie r, for th os e re ce nt m obilizations did not e xpre s s any sort of m ove m e nt for progre s s ive ch ange . Inde e d, th e e ntire discours e of ch ange h as be e n ce de d to

h istorical proce s s e s can appe ar m yste rious “on th e ground,” be yond th e ability of local actors to influe nce , and can ge ne rate fe e lings of pow e rle s sne s s . At th e sam e tim e , for a varie ty of re asons , progre s s ive social and political m ove m e nts dire cte d against th e status q uo in th e Middle East h ave be e n inordinate ly w e ak , or, as in Iraq or th e Sudan, viole ntly suppre s s e d. (It h as be e n th e additional m isfortune of such progre s s ive m ove m e nts th at th e s e cular auth oritarian re gim e s suppre s s ing th e m w e re e ith e r re garde d as progre s s ive w ith in th e dom inant Cold W ar fram e w ork or, at th e ve ry le ast, w e re not th e obje cts of sustaine d progre s s ive critical analys is .) A vacuum w as cre ate d by th e failure of Arab nationalist as w e ll as putative ly traditional m onarch ist re gim e s , both of w h ich suppre s s e d progre s s ive oppos itions . Th is vacuum h as be e n fille d by Islam icist m ove m e nts , w h ich purport to e xplain th e appare ntly m yste rious de cline pe ople in th e Arab/Muslim w orld h ave be e n e xpe rie ncing, one th at h as ge ne rate d a palpable s e ns e of dis illus ionm e nt and political de spair. A contributing factor to th is ide ological, re actionary m ode of unde rstanding th e cris is of an e ntire re gion is th e de gre e to w h ich th e Pale stinian struggle for s e lf-de te rm ination h as be e n functionalize d for de cade s by Arab re gim e s as a nationalist ligh te ning rod to de fle ct popular ange r and disconte nt. (Again, to avoid unne ce s sary m isunde rstandings — to say th at Pale stinian struggle s h ave be e n functionalize d doe s not discre dit th os e struggle s th e m s e lve s .) Th e te nde ncy to attribute th e m is e re of th e Arab m ass e s and, incre as ingly, th e e ducate d m iddle class e s , to e vil e xte rnal force s , h ow e ve r, h as be com e m uch m ore inte ns e w ith th e re ce nt de cline of th e Arab w orld. Th e ide ological fram e w ork th at w as alre ady available to m ak e s e ns e of th is de cline w as form ulate d by th ink e rs such as th e ide ologue of th e Egyptian Muslim Broth e rh ood, Sayye d Qutb, w h o re je cte d capitalist m ode rnity and re garde d it as a plot cre ate d by Je w s (Fre ud, Marx, Durk h e im ) to unde rm ine “h e alth y” socie tie s . W ith in h is anti-Se m itic im aginary, Israe l w as s im ply th e bridge h e ad for a pow e rful and pe rnicious global conspiracy. Th is sort of ide ology h ad be e n supporte d and prom ote d by Nazi propaganda e fforts in th e Middle East in th e 19 30s and th e 19 40s . It w as strongly re inforce d by Sovie t Cold W ar ide ology afte r th e 19 67 w ar, w h ich introduce d anti-Se m itic m otifs into its critiq ue of Israe l and w h ich contribute d to th e spre ad of a form of anti-Z ionism , strongly inform e d by anti-Se m itic th e m e s of s ingular abh orre nce and conspiratorial global pow e r, th at be cam e w ide spre ad in th e Middle East and w ith in s e gm e nts of th e Le ft — e spe cially in Europe — in th e past th re e de cade s . Th e gre atly incre as e d e xte nt and im portance of th e anti-Se m itic w orldvie w in th e Middle East in re ce nt de cade s , h ow e ve r, s h ould also, in m y vie w , be s e e n as th e spre ad of a purporte dly antih e ge m onic ide ology in th e face of th e ne gative and disruptive e ffe cts of appare ntly m yste rious h istorical force s . I am sugge sting, in oth e r w ords , th at th e spre ad of anti-Se m itism and, re late dly, anti-Se m itic form s of Islam icism (such as th e Egyptian Muslim Broth e rh ood and its Pale stinian offs h oot, H am as) s h ould be unde rstood as th e spre ad of a fe tis h ize d anticapitalist ide ology w h ich claim s to m ak e s e ns e of a w orld pe rce ive d as th re ate ning. Th is ide ology m ay be spark e d and e xace rbate d by Israe l and Israe li policie s , but its re sonance is roote d in th e re lative de cline of th e Arab w orld against th e back ground of th e m ass ive structural transform ations as sociate d w ith th e trans ition Public Culture 1 0 2 from Fordism to ne olibe ral global capitalism . Th e re sult is a populist antih e ge m onic m ove m e nt th at is profoundly re actionary and dange rous , not le ast of all for any h ope for progre s s ive politics in th e Arab/Muslim w orld. Rath e r th an analyzing th is re actionary form of re s istance in w ays th at w ould h e lp support m ore progre s s ive form s of re s istance , h ow e ve r, m any on th e W e ste rn Le ft h ave e ith e r ignore d it or rationalize d it as an unfortunate , if unde rstandable ,

11

W ar fram e w ork , re taining its s h e ll e ve n afte r th e Cold W ar? H ow did so m any progre s s ive s back th e m s e lve s into a corne r w h e re it appe are d th at th e only political is sue globally w as U.S. policy, re gardle ss of th e nature of oth e r re gim e s? I w ould lik e to be gin addre s s ing th is proble m indire ctly, w ith re fe re nce to th e is sue of political viole nce . As I m e ntione d, th os e w h o w e re critical of th e e norm ous tide of ange r and nationalism th at sw e pt th e Unite d State s afte r Se pte m be r 11 fre q ue ntly note d th at th e re w as a gre at de al of rage dire cte d against th e Unite d State s , e spe cially in Arab and Muslim countrie s . Th is ge ne ral pos ition, h ow e ve r, usually s ide ste ppe d analyzing th e sort of politics th e attack on Se pte m be r 11 e xpre s s e d. It is s ignificant th at such an attack w as not unde rtak e n tw o or th re e de cade s ago by groups th at h ad e ve ry re ason to be angry at th e Unite d State s — for e xam ple th e Vie tnam e s e Com m unists or th e Ch ile an Le ft. It is im portant to note th at th e abs e nce of such an attack th e n w as not continge nt, but an e xpre s s ion of political principle . Inde e d, an attack dire cte d prim arily against civilians w as outs ide of th e h orizon of th e political im aginarie s of such groups . Th e cate gory of “ange r” is not sufficie nt to unde rstand th e viole nce of Se pte m be r 11. Form s of viole nce h ave to be unde rstood politically, not apologe tically. Le t m e give an e xam ple : in th e m id-19 80s , th e re w as inte rnal political pre s sure on th e ce ntral com m itte e of th e African National Congre s s to be gin a cam paign of te rror against w h ite South African civilians . Such de m ands e xpre s s e d th e de s ire for re ve nge as w e ll as th e ide a th at w h ite South Africans w ould agre e to dism antle aparth e id only if th e y suffe re d just as black South Africans h ad suffe re d. Th e ANC ce ntral com m itte e re fus e d to counte nance such de m ands , not only for tactical, strate gic, and pragm atic re asons (th e e ffe cts of such form s of viole nce on postaparth e id civil socie ty and on th e re gim e ), but also for re asons of political principle . It w as argue d th at m ove m e nts for e m ancipation do not ch oos e th e civilian population as th e ir m ain targe t. I w ould lik e to sugge st th at th e re is a fundam e ntal diffe re nce be tw e e n m ove m e nts th at do not targe t civilians random ly (such as th e Vie t Minh and Vie t Cong and th e ANC) and th os e th at do (such as th e IRA, al-Qae da, and H am as). Th is diffe re nce is not s im ply tactical but profoundly political; a re lation e xists be tw e e n th e form of viole nce and th e form of politics . Th at is , I w ant to sugge st th at th e sort of future socie ty and polity im plicitly e xpre s s e d by th e political praxis of m ilitant social m ove m e nts th at distinguis h m ilitary from civilian targe ts diffe rs from th at im plie d by th e praxis of m ove m e nts th at m ak e no such distinction. Th e latte r te nd to be conce rne d w ith ide ntity. In th e broade st s e ns e th e y are radically nationalist, ope rating on th e bas is of a frie nd/foe distinction th at e s s e ntialize s a civilian population as th e e ne m y and close s off th e poss ibility of future coe xiste nce . For th at re ason, th e program s of such m ove m e nts pre s e nt little in th e w ay of socioe conom ic analys is aim e d at transform ing social structure s (w h ich s h ould not be conflate d w ith social s e rvice s , w h ich m ove m e nts m ay or m ay not provide ). In such cas e s , th e tw e ntie th -ce ntury diale ctic of w ar and re volution is transform e d into th e subsum ption of “re volution” unde r w ar. My conce rn h e re , h ow e ve r, h as le s s to do w ith such m ove m e nts th an it doe s w ith conte m porary m e tropolitan oppos ition m ove m e nts and w h y th e y

th e Righ t. Th is doe s not, in any w ay, m e an th at propone nts of progre s s ive ch ange s h ould h ave supporte d th e Bus h adm inistration and its w ar. But re ce nt m ass m obilizations ne ith e r e xpre s s e d nor h e lpe d constitute w h at, arguably, w as calle d for in th is conte xt — a m ove m e nt oppose d to th e Am e rican w ar th at, at th e sam e tim e , w as a m ove m e nt for fundam e ntal ch ange in Iraq and, m ore ge ne rally, th e Middle East. In th e Unite d State s , ve ry little political e ducation w as unde rtak e n th at e xte nde d be yond th e crude slogans proffe re d. It is s ignificant in th is re gard th at, to th e be st of m y k now le dge , none of th e m ass ive de m onstrations against th e w ar fe ature d oppos itional progre s s ive Iraq is w h o could provide a m ore nuance d and critical pe rspe ctive on th e Middle East. And th is , I w ould argue , re pre s e nts a te lling political failure on th e part of th e Le ft. O ne of th e ironie s of th e curre nt s ituation is th at, by adopting a fe tis h ize d “anti-im pe rialist” pos ition, one w h e re oppos ition to th e Unite d State s no longe r is bound to advocacy of progre s s ive ch ange , libe rals and progre s s ive s h ave allow e d th e Am e rican ne ocons e rvative Righ t in th e Bus h adm inistration to appropriate and e ve n m onopolize w h at traditionally h ad be e n th e language of th e Le ft, th e Public Culture language of de m ocracy and libe ration. It is th e cas e , of cours e , th at, alth ough th e Bus h re gim e spe ak s of de m ocratic ch ange in th e Middle East, it w ill not re ally h e lp e ffe ct such ch ange . Ne ve rth e le s s , th at only th e Bus h adm inistration rais e d th is is sue re ve als stark ly th at th e Le ft did not do so. If a ge ne ration ago, oppos ition to Am e rican policy consciously e ntaile d supporting struggle s for libe ration de e m e d progre s s ive , today th e oppos ition to Am e rican policy in and of its e lf is de e m e d antih e ge m onic. Th is , paradoxically, is , in part, an unfortunate le gacy of th e Cold W ar and th e dualistic w orldvie w associate d w ith it. Th e spatial cate gory of “cam p,” w h ich e xpre s s e d a global ve rs ion of th e Gre at Gam e , w as substitute d for te m poral cate gorie s of h istorical poss ibilitie s and of e m ancipation as th e de te rm inate h istorical ne gation of capitalism . Th is not only h e lpe d blur th e ide a of socialism as th e h istorical be yond of capitalism but also h e lpe d s k e w unde rstandings of inte rnational de ve lopm e nts . Inasm uch as th e progre s s ive cam p w as de fine d by a spatial, e s s e ntially dualistic fram e w ork , th e conte nt of th e te rm progre s s ive could, on th e inte rnational le ve l, be com e incre as ingly continge nt, a function of a global balance of pow e r. W h at th e Cold W ar s e e m s to h ave e radicate d from m e m ory, for e xam ple , is th at oppos ition to an im pe rial pow e r is not ne ce s sarily progre s s ive , th at th e re w e re fascist “anti-im pe rialism s” as w e ll. Th is distinction w as blurre d during th e Cold W ar in part be caus e th e USSR aligne d its e lf w ith auth oritarian re gim e s , for e xam ple , in th e Middle East, th at h ad little in com m on w ith socialist and com m unist m ove m e nts , th at, if anyth ing, h ad m ore in com m on w ith fascism th an com m unism and th at, in fact, sough t to liq uidate th e ir ow n Le ft. Cons e q ue ntly, anti-Am e ricanism pe r s e be cam e code d as progre s s ive , alth ough th e re h ad and h ave be e n de e ply re actionary as w e ll as progre s s ive form s of anti-Am e ricanism . W h y did m any on th e Le ft — including th os e w h o did not re gard th e Sovie t Union affirm ative ly — adopt th is dualistic Cold

re volutionary, is th at it e xpre s s e s and affirm s a ce ntral ch aracte ristic of capitalism : its ce as e le s s re volutionizing of th e w orld th rough w ave s of de struction th at allow for cre ation, for furth e r e xpans ion. (Lik e th e libe ral notion of th e rational actor, th e e xiste ntialist and anarch ist notions of th e s e lf-constitution of pe rsonh ood th rough viole nce e ntail a proje ction onto th e individual of th at w h ich ch aracte rize s corporate e ntitie s in capitalism .) H annah Are ndt provide d a te lling critiq ue of th e sort of th ink ing about viole nce found in th e w ork s of Ge orge s Sore l, Vilfre do Pare to, and Frantz Fanon. Th os e th ink e rs , according to Are ndt, glorifie d viole nce for th e sak e of viole nce . Motivate d by a m uch de e pe r h atre d of bourge ois socie ty th an th e conve ntional Le ft for w h om viole nce could be a m e ans in th e struggle for a just socie ty, Sore l, Pare to, and Fanon re garde d viole nce pe r s e as inh e re ntly e m ancipatory, as a radical bre ak w ith socie ty’s m oral standards . Re trospe ctive ly, w e can s e e th at th e sort of e xiste ntialist viole nce prom ulgate d m ay h ave e ffe cte d a bre ak w ith bourge ois socie ty — but not, h ow e ve r, w ith capitalism . Inde e d, it s e e m s to acq uire m ost im portance during trans itions from one h istorical configuration of capitalism to anoth e r. Th ink ing w ith Are ndt, I w ill brie fly cons ide r th e re surge nce in th e late 19 60s of Sore lian-type glorifications of viole nce . Th e late 19 60s w e re a crucial h istorical m om e nt, one w h e n th e ne ce s s ity of th e pre s e nt, of th e curre nt social orde r, w as fundam e ntally calle d into q ue stion. Vie w e d re trospe ctive ly, it w as a m om e nt w h e n state -ce nte re d Fordist capitalism and its statist “actually e xisting socialist” e q uivale nt ran up against h istorical lim its . Atte m pts to ge t be yond th os e lim its w e re , h ow e ve r, s ingularly unsucce s sful, e ve n on a conce ptual le ve l. As th e Fordist synth e s is be gan to unrave l, utopian h ope s w e re nouris h e d. At th e sam e tim e , th e targe t of social, political, and cultural disconte nt be cam e m adde ningly e lus ive and all-pe rvas ive . Th e fe lt pre s sure s for ch ange w e re pre s e nt, but th e road to ch ange w as ve ry uncle ar. In th is pe riod, stude nts and youth w e re not so m uch re acting against e xploitation as th e y w e re re acting against bure aucratization and alie nation. Not only did class ical w ork e rs’ m ove m e nts s e e m unable to addre s s th e burning is sue s for m any young radicals, but th os e m ove m e nts — as w e ll as th e “actually e xisting socialist” re gim e s — s e e m e d to be de e ply im plicate d in pre cis e ly w h at th e stude nts and youth w e re re be lling against. Face d w ith th is ne w h istorical s ituation, th is political te rra incognita, m any oppos itional m ove m e nts took a turn to th e conce ptually fam iliar, to a focus on concre te e xpre s s ions of dom ination, such as m ilitary viole nce or bure aucratic police -state political dom ination. Such a focus allow e d for a conce ption of oppos itional politics th at w as its e lf concre te and, fre q ue ntly, particularistic (e .g., nationalism ). Exam ple s w e re concre tistic form s of anti-im pe rialism as w e ll as th e grow ing focus by som e on concre te dom ination in th e com m unist East. As diffe re nt, and e ve n oppose d, as th e s e political re spons e s m ay h ave appe are d at th e tim e , both occlude d th e nature of th e abstract dom ination of capital just w h e n capital’s re gim e w as be com ing le s s state -ce ntric and, in th at s e ns e , e ve n m ore abstract. Th e turn to Sore lian viole nce w as a m om e nt of th is turn to th e concre te . VioPublic Culture 1 0 8 le nce , or th e ide a of viole nce , w as s e e n as an e xpre s s ion of political w ill, of h istorical age ncy, counte ring structure s of bure aucratization and alie nation. In th e face of alie nation and bure aucratic stas is , viole nce w as de e m e d cre ative , and viole nt action pe r s e be cam e vie w e d as re volutionary. In spite of th e as sociation of viole nce w ith political w ill, h ow e ve r, I w ould argue , as did Are ndt, th at th e ne w glorification of viole nce of th e late 19 60s w as caus e d by a s e ve re frustration of th e faculty of action in th e m ode rn w orld. Th at is , it e xpre s s e d an unde rlying de spair w ith re gard to th e re al e fficacy of political w ill, of political age ncy. In a h istorical s ituation of h e igh te ne d h e lple ssne s s , viole nce both e xpre s s e d th e rage of h e lple ssne s s and h e lpe d suppre s s such fe e lings of h e lple ssne s s . It be cam e an act of s e lf-constitution as outs ide r, as oth e r, rath e r th an an instrum e nt of transform ation.

appare ntly h ave h ad difficulty distinguis h ing be tw e e n th e s e ve ry diffe re nt form s of “re s istance .” Th e attack of Se pte m be r 11, 2001, calls into q ue stion som e notions of viole nce and re s istance th at spre ad am ong parts of th e Ne w Le ft in th e late 19 60s and e arly 19 70s , as fundam e ntally as th e Sovie t invas ion of Prague in August 19 68 and Public Culture 1 0 6 th e n, finally, th e collapse of Europe an Com m unist state s be tw e e n 19 89 and 19 9 1 calle d into q ue stion Le ninism as a h e ge m onic discours e and m ark e d th e e nd of th e traje ctory th at be gan in 19 17. Look ing back to th e late 19 60s and th e e arly 19 70s , w e can disce rn an im portant political s h ift w h e n w h at w as th e n th e Ne w Le ft m ove d from a loose m ove m e nt advocating nonviole nt re s istance and social transform ation to a fragm e nte d m ilitant m ove m e nt. Som e of th os e fragm e nte d groups be gan glorifying arm e d struggle or pe rpe trate d viole nce th e m s e lve s . Re late dly, th e re w as an incre as e in support for groups lik e th e provis ional IRA (Iris h Re publican Arm y) and th e PFLP (Popular Front for th e Libe ration of Pale stine ), groups th at h ad little in com m on w ith th e com m unist and socialist m ove m e nts th at e arlie r h ad ch aracte rize d and inform e d th e Le ft. Incre as ingly a form of viole nce w as prom ulgate d dom e stically and supporte d inte rnationally th at w as fundam e ntally diffe re nt from th at w h ich ge ne rally h ad be e n h e ge m onic on th e Le ft for m uch of th e tw e ntie th ce ntury. Th e w ay viole nce be cam e conce ptualize d h ad a gre at de al in com m on w ith th e vie w of viole nce prom ulgate d by Ge orge s Sore l at th e be ginning of th e tw e ntie th ce ntury. In Re fle ctions on Viole nce , h e pre s e nte d viole nce as a cle ans ing act of s e lf-constitution dire cte d against th e de cade nce of bourge ois socie ty. A s im ilar notion of viole nce as a re de m ptive act of re ge ne ration, a political e xpre s s ion of th e dictate s of pure w ill, w as , of cours e , ce ntral to th e fascist and Nazi notion of th e ne w m an and th e ne w orde r. Afte r W orld W ar II th is com ple x of attitude s be cam e adopte d by som e on th e Le ft, transm itte d in som e cas e s via th e m e dium of e xiste ntialism . Th is w as particularly th e cas e in th e late 19 50s and 19 60s , as social critiq ue focus e d incre as ingly on te ch nocratic bure aucratic form s of dom ination and as th e Sovie t Union incre as ingly be cam e pe rce ive d as s h aring in a dom inant culture of instrum e ntal rationality. W ith in th is conte xt viole nce be cam e s e e n as a nonre ifie d, cle ans ing force e rupting from th e outs ide , ide ntifie d now as th e colonize d, attack ing th e ve ry foundations of th e e xisting orde r. An irony involve d in th is “radical” stance , in th e ide a of viole nce as cre ative , cle ans ing, and

12

Ye t, focus e d as it w as on th e bure aucratic stas is of th e Fordist w orld, it e ch oe d th e de struction of th at w orld by th e dynam ics of capital. Th e ide a of a fundam e ntal transform ation be cam e brack e te d and, inste ad, w as re place d by th e m ore am biguous notion of re s istance . Th e notion of re s istance , h ow e ve r, says little about