Mitchel Cohen interviews organizers Chris Monsour and Ian Morrison, from the new radical organization, Platypus. You can learn more about the group at http://www.Platypus1917.org .
Mitchel Cohen interviews organizers Chris Monsour and Ian Morrison, from the new radical organization, Platypus. You can learn more about the group at http://www.Platypus1917.org .
[...] “education” rather than by example through action. The debate was prompted by an interview conducted with Platypus Chris Mansour and Ian Morrison by WBAI board member Mitchell Cohen, a [...]
Mitchel Cohen’s interview with Platypus has triggered some discussion on Doug Henwood’s “Left Business Observer” website, which can be accessed at
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/
and type “Platypus” into the Search slot.
Also, Louis Proyect has some comments about the groups on his “Unrepentant Marxist” blog, at
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/q-what-is-a-platypus-a-an-american-eustonite/
At both sites, as well as at this one, you can leave comments and join the discussion (as arcane as some of the comments are).
The expected audacity of Proyect’s zealous comments come as no surprise from someone who seems more inclined to try and belittle his so-called “opponents” (i.e. Platypus) instead of offer any real critical response. Immediately off-the-bat he opens this piece with these unqualified statements:
“The two young men have cultivated the art of sounding outrageous, so necessary in raising one’s profile on a left filled with ambitious attempts at carving out a market niche. They say, for example, that Naomi Klein has mounted a “rightwing critique of Milton Friedman”. I have my own problems with Klein, but this analysis is frankly stupid.”
Acquisitions such as our thirst to “raise our profile” in some sort of “market niche” should not even be addressed. –The only illumination one could get from this comment is if you put a match up to this straw-man, it would burn ever so brightly.
But the potential for debate that lies in his disagreement is our claim that Naomi Klein represents the perfect example of the right-ward drift in the Left today. By only citing our assessment as a “stupid” theory, Proyect fails to mention the conversation that followed from our radio interview. I will thus reiterate.
Klein’s allergy to politics of emancipation–or at the very least forming a political program that incorporates utopian ends–is by far the most telling aspect of Klein’s right-wing position. She only goes as far as advocating a kind of “new” New Deal, and calls for the “nationalization” of resources such as oil, etc. And as problematic as these calls are, they are not even means to an end for Klein–this, to her, is utopian enough! As any purported Marxist very well knows, those who supported the New Deal when it first came into the picture in the 1930s was a *conservative* response to the economic crisis of the Great Depression; it was in no way intended to open up further conditions to a revolutionary politic, but attempted to thwart them.
And we not only substantiated our claims by pointing to Klein’s myopic political imagination, but we also–quite provocatively I might add–find its roots in the end-of-ideology camp from the 1950s. This thesis–which the New Left pitted themselves against in their formative years in the late 50s and early 60s–was not much different then what we see in Klein: advocating for a “mixed economy,” the dropping of a “revolutionary rhetoric,” and the call for state run programs. It is evident which side of history Klein resides, but obviously not for most of the Left because of the popularity she receives from its circles (and does confusion include you, Proyect, or were you more interested in making cheap shots?).
All throughout Proyects sweeping statements–that provide evidence that he did not thoroughly engage with our material–he makes many accusations, but provides little substance. I’d suggest that instead of trying to smear all of Platypus with one foul swipe, you focus your argument more and engage with us on the level of ideas rather than ad hominem responses–you actually might come off as more coherent that way.
I would be more than happy to get into a critical discussion about why or why not Klein represents a right-wing perspective, but given the hysteria that comes from his writing, we can only start by clearing the fog exhausted from his apparent frustration. I guess the format of his blog is most appropriate medium for his writing: it comes off as a mere editorial instead of a solid and thoughtful critique.