"What is Marxism For?" (04/02/2022 panel)

On April 2nd, 2022, the Platypus Affiliated Society hosted a public forum on the topic "What is Marxism For?" at Northwestern University as a part of the 2022 Platypus International Convention.
Was the Millennial Left Marxist? What was not Marxist about it? What is the relevance of Marxism today? Why is it necessary to recover or return to Marxism and what would it mean to go beyond it? What is the point of leadership by Marxist intellectuals? Is that necessary?
Speakers:
-Benjamin Studebaker
-Donald Parkinson
-James Heartfield
-Chris Cutrone
An edited transcript of the event can be read in Platypus Review #153
[platypus1917.org/2023/02/01/w...]
_____________________________________
Curious to learn more about Platypus? E-mail [e-mail] to be connected with a chapter in your area.
The Platypus Affiliated Society organizes reading groups, public fora, research, and journalism focused on problems and tasks inherited from the "Old" (1920s-30s), "New" (1960s-70s), and post-political (1980s-90s) Left, for the possibilities of emancipatory politics today.
www.platypus1917.org​

[@Work-WorkBalance]

Chris Cutrone legend! Please more from him!

[@steveroberts1792]

A very important and wide ranging discussion for anyone interested in the necessity of transforming society. No small task. Much is revealed, this is not an an echo chamber of self congratulatory leftists. Many conclusions can be drawn, among them what is to be done, and also what is not to be done. Once again so impressed with remarks/questions from the audience.

[@gutergoy9053]

One of the best Platypus Panels in terms of camera work and looks. Good job

[@rozavolya5320]

this camera job honestly helps w my adhd

[@weebgrinder]

"Vulgar Marxist-Leninist revivalism" is right. That's how I got into Marxism but glad I quickly figured out apologetics for the USSR aren't going to win over workers. Awesome discussion.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

Why are you into Marxism, when so many of his theories were debunked even while he was alive?

[@elisennesh7641]

Tbh we need way more informed critique of the USSR and its form of economic planning, rather than the rival apologetics of tankies versus market liberals.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@elisennesh7641 But also, more critiques of Marxism itself. He wasn't correct that profit is made by undercutting wages.

[@elisennesh7641]

@@lochnessmunster1189 If he wasn't, where does profit come from? It seems like a mathematical identity when you read it in Marx or even Lasalle. So if that's wrong, the mathematical model being applied is wrong at some broader level.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@elisennesh7641 Well, it's a common misconception that profit can only come from labor alone. It comes from all the inputs that an employer will add into the production. As well as labor, an employer will often add land, buildings, materials, tools, knowledge, electricity, water etc. All of these things must add more in value than what the employer is paying, otherwise there's no point in having them. (Bad business models could have one or two which don't add value, but they wouldn't last long). The factory which buys electricity from another, must gain more than it pays the electricity-provider. If it pays $500 a month, it is pointless if it only adds $500 in value. If labor is being 'exploited', then the electricity-company is, too. But it isn't. If profit could only be made from labor (underpaying wages) then it would never make sense for an employer to replace employees (I won't use the term 'workers' because that suggests the employer isn't a worker) with machinery, as they would be losing labor, and thus could only lose profits. But as we both know, that isn't true.

[@bekahpar-lar8549]

Studebaker's voice has an uncanny resemblance to John Mulaney??????

[@elisennesh7641]

Ben at 2:14:00, that's just the Koch Brothers and ALEC but bipartisan.

[@joeynickles7962]

There are interesting things here but what I mostly get from this discussion are different flavors of a common mood: an immense pessimism. And certainly not without reason! Nonetheless, I wonder how well we understand this pervasive feeling on the left (so pervasive and deeply-rooted it is today that I’m tempted to designate it as THE left feeling). It would seem there is a (his)story to be told about why this is the case. Is it one worth telling? It might be. I’m not singling out this particular panel or the Platypus organization. I’m posting this here because it feels like a very representative example for me. Discussion panels, books, articles…whatever the format, the left’s “content” leaves me feeling enervated. What is left behind after an encounter with left analysis is almost entirely“the left is dead” rather than “long live the left”. I can’t imagine I’m the only one that feels this way.

[@Hist_da_Musica]

Around 2:25:00. Immanent critique is not some method that can be used irregardless of the object of critique. It's possible and necessary to critique Smith and Ricardo, but it is both impossible and unnecessary to critique Butler and Derrida immanently. Maybe one could polemicize against French Ideology in a way simmilar to the critique of German Ideology, but the critique of political economy is a different project. To say we just need to transpose Marx's method to contemporary reality fails to address how our time differs from his!

[@jonasfringe2793]

It appears like Habermas somehow attempted this in the 1980s - immanent critique of and polemics on contemporary theory.

[@Hist_da_Musica]

@@jonasfringe2793 I think it was more polemical in his case - maybe Fredric Jameson attempted the immanent critique

[@jonasfringe2793]

@@Hist_da_Musica I was considering his "Theory of Communicative Action" as a kind of immanent critique; "The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity" as more polemical? 🤔 But I'm really not that familiar with his work.

[@gonzogil123]

20:14min What specific set of politico (defending themselves from cops and Homeland Sec, FBI, CIA etc) -economic (become more independent from the capitalist per business quarter) plans and relations have they rejected to opt for the non-solutions of Sanders to Trump.?

[@armand9199]

Studebaker at 1:56:00: get yours before you git got!

[@surfaceenvy5497]

Ben is such a riot

[@elisennesh7641]

He's also only able to get away with saying what he says because he's doing it comedically. He's absolutely right that "the Millennial Left" (I would generalize and just say, "the Left", there's no older thing outside Platypus that works any differently) is an almost entirely Schmittian enterprise.

[@surfaceenvy5497]

@@elisennesh7641 imagine if he were a strident woman saying the same things.

[@elisennesh7641]

@@surfaceenvy5497 we don't have to imagine. That's Aimee Terese, his old podcast cohost.

[@surfaceenvy5497]

@@elisennesh7641 or Nina his current co host. Not to say this is in any way Ben's fault, but he gets to write for Current Affairs, Nina and Aimee get death threats and hate mobs.

[@elisennesh7641]

@@surfaceenvy5497 wait, Ben has a new gig? I knew he had Political Theory 101 with his student at Cambridge but nothing beyond that.

[@Booer]

Who's that marxist offending ppl I like em

[@sicnarf423]

[@AndreyKva]

All the speakers were great, but I think Benjamin really stole the whole show.

[@MultiJevens]

the dude in the button up is a bit long winded.

[@robbibittybob20]

Not well structured

[@theswoletariat3479]

This camera man is way too high. Lol all the zooming in and out

[@InebriatedEscapist]

he's getting jiggy wit it

[@e.t.6608]

I like it very much!