Why A Left-Leaning Person Should Support Ron Paul

Bryan Klausmeyer

If you look at social and economic equality over the twentieth century there were certainly low points and high points, but the overall trend was towards a more just society, just as it had been in 19th century america.

And certainly this has been the trend in most other first-world countries (none of whom operate a strictly laissez-faire economy). However, I don’t buy the argument that we live in a post-industrial world. We’ve simply moved our labor source to third-world countries. Why should we only be concerned with how capitalism affects us?

My contention isn’t that Libertarianism is suddenly flourishing—it’s still a somewhat marginal political sect. It is rather that I think that what their socio-economic platform offers is the only thing capable of rearticulating today’s ideologico-political coordinates, now obfuscated by the “fundamentalist threat” and multiculturalist liberalism, by way of a kind of economic terror.

I also completely disagree with your view about class. I’m not aiming for class egalitarianism where capitalism still remains as the dominant economic system. Something like that seems like it belongs to the hegemonized spectrum of the current liberal “tolerance” (everyone is equal, all opinions are equal, let’s create an open platform for everyone to be equal, etc., etc.). While this is respectable in regards to horizontal strata, e.g. race, sex, etc., it is entirely inappropriate for class struggle. Class struggle isn’t about ameliorating antagonisms within society but allowing for antagonisms themselves to manifest. This is why there is nothing neither egalitarian nor utopian about class struggle.

I think that rather than dreaming of a better tomorrow, we should conceive of the nightmare and posit that as the only true, positive path for social change…

Aug 30, 2007 @ 10:49 PM

Bryan Klausmeyer

My wager is that I don’t think, unlike Francis Fukuyama (and your Fabian gradualism), that liberal democracy is the end of history. I think that through a violent passage a l’act, and only through the passage a l’act, we can find something better.

Some of your summary of what I wrote is correct, some of it isn’t, so I’ll try and rephrase it:

1. Today’s ideologico-political coordinates are obfuscated by the preponderance of the “multiculturalist liberal” of single-issue politics vs. irrational religious fundamentalism. This is offered to us as the only choice today in terms of political choice, and thus presents us with a clear case of ideology at its worst. Why not try and reconfigure these politics and opt for a combination of irrational terror and egalitarian tolerance?

2. The entrenchment of global capital seems to be assured more than ever by all sides of the political spectrum here in the U.S. The Republicans (or at least some) are opting for proto-fascist “capitalism without capitalism” by enacting protectionist measures and erecting walls to keep out immigrants (and a similar thing is happening in the E.U.). The Democrats are now taking over the traditional Republican role of decentralizing and privatizing federal social institutions (e.g. Clinton’s welfare reform and Blair’s completion of the Thatcher revolution in Britain). Right-wing Libertarians want the complete free-flow of capital and the absolute abolition of all social institutions, and even some far-left Democrats, like the core of the anti-globalization campaign, stand for proto-fascist protectionism. We are left in an utter bind.

3. By opting for Right Libertarianism, we let the people suffer and thereby bring about, ideally, a re-politicization of capital at the grassroots level. Perhaps people will even come to question the coordinates of today’s hegemonic form of political participation here in the U.S. or in Europe (e.g., overthrowing the two-party system or pluralism in favor of the demos of the Greek polis.) There are many options, but I think we should trust in the people, but only after we “dissolve them,” to requote Brecht.

Aug 31, 2007 @ 4:44 PM

Bryan Klausmeyer

In fact you’d be hard pressed to find even a Republican candidate running a “our system is a perfect system” campaign. That sort of campaign seems absent even after a successful two-term presidency.

I think this is a very misleading statement. This is what is wrong with our current political doxa: the belief that equality can be achieved only through gradual reform within the space of democracy (what one is tempted to call “democratic fundamentalist”), and that this reform has a teleology that will lead us to some sort of utopian Enlightenment ideal at the end of the journey. This is where our democracy is at, as well. It’s only legitimate to say, “Yes, our system is imperfect, but through democracy and reform we can make it better!” (like environmentalists who say, “What we need is an electric car!” — why not question the use of the car to begin with?) What this view obfuscates is the fact that the problems of our society are not aberrations, but systemic, rooted in the very structure of our society and government themselves. This doesn’t mean, however, that we should abandon single-issue struggles, like the fight for women’s rights, the fight for gay rights, saving the environment, etc., etc. (as we would then be completely dismissing the sphere of politics itself), but we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that what we need now more than ever is to unite around a universal struggle (a “think locally, act globally”—the observe of the environmentalist motto). In a way, Christianity and St. Paul are useful for understanding this concept. In Colossians 3:11 St. Paul writes, “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” We should instead replace Christ with the other “c”: Capital (and this is more abundantly clear in relation to my point about class being the only truly ‘vertical’ cleavage).

If you want to blame someone for this current system it would be the ill-informed public who frames the debate by being so easily swayed by these issues. I fail to see how this ill-informed public can be expected to become “enlightened” by a passage a l’act.

I think this is an elitist attitude, but nevertheless my whole point about terror is that it will theoretically awaken within the people an Esprit de corp, just look at Eastern Europe in the late-1980s. What people are lacking in isn’t information, but rather information is missing itself qua information. The proper channels for politicization are dismissed today as remnants of the past, so all we’re left with is cynicism and Habermasian post-political committees filled with experts to decide everything.

Clinton and Blair are exceptions not baselines and since there are major candidates who actively oppose privatization you cannot claim that there is no choice other than traditional Republican and Proto-Facism as an alternative clearly exists. You speak of right, libertarian and left wing ideologues as if there were no middle ground when in fact the middle is far greater than any fringe group.

I don’t believe this to be the case, and I don’t think you’ve adequately defended this point. Just look at Barack Obama’s health care plan (not to mention the fact that he’s the favored choice among billionaires). Also, to correct what you wrote, I’m not saying that today we are, in reality, only offered a choice between multiculturalist tolerance and fundamentalism, but that this is what we’re told to believe (and it is obviously not true).

The political spectrum that I laid out was not just that of radicals and reactionaries, but today’s “choices” in their totality (at least to my best approximation), minus those on the Left who continue to advocate the welfare state and who, more and more, find themselves under attack—both from Third-Way moderate Leftists as well as (obviously) from the Right.

So I guess in a way you’re right, bureaucratic systems don’t stay the same. The “middle America” you speak of is now rejecting the welfare system (though the current AARP-generation effectively mobilized against Bush to prevent Social Security reform.)

But there is no demand for such retooling.

In terms of an authentically revolutionary moment, what Badiou would call a Truth-Event (which is, for the sake of this discussion, similar to passage a l’act), one simply can’t wait for some exit poll to tell us that people want change (which was also Rosa Luxemburg’s criticism of Karl Kautsky’s thesis about proletarian revolution). There has to be a moment that shatters everything. Look at Lenin between 1914 and 1917. In 1914, Europe and Russia were split as WWI ravaged the continent and nationalist fervor was at an all time high (in a way, very similar to the post-9/11 era). Communist Parties all around Europe were rapidly disintegrating and even Lenin himself was in deep despair. Yet, by taking a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith, defying all odds, the people were all of a sudden ready for radical change (though, in a cruel twist, they got the “returns of the repressed” in the Lacanian sense sent back to them in the form of Stalinism). The same is true for the Jesus in Judea, Toussant l’Overture in Haiti, the Jacobins in the French Revolution, Mao in China, and the overthrow of actually existing socialism in East Europe at the end of the 20th century.

Aug 31, 2007 @ 10:46 PM

Bryan Klausmeyer

And let’s say we had this pro-reform majority, wouldn’t resources be better spent by direct reform instead of the indirect reform of economic collapse through Ron Paul?

Absolutely!* I think you’ve misunderstood my point: the hypothetical majority would be of Libertarians voting, not Leftists (though I suppose from my original post this isn’t made explicitly clear). This post isn’t about having Leftists all of a sudden become Libertarians, but a “traversing of the fantasy” (in the Lacanian sense) of the political Other. Meaning: “Libertarians, if you ever come into power, do what you want, enact all your policies, we may even help you, because through our knowledge of historical materialism, we already know the outcome.” It’s my contention that their project and ours (or maybe just mine) is actually one in the same through the Hegelian notion of infinite judgment. Only, this time, we’d be prepared to stand up as Lenin did and, hopefully, not make the same disastrous mistakes.

For your edification: passage a l’act: a psychotic act operating outside the Symbolic edifice. It is similar to Truth-Event insofar as Truth-Event is an Act (in Badiou’s sense) that is impossible to foresee or integrate into the social-symbolic order. It shatters the coordinates of the entire ideological constellation. I’m probably using these terms more idiosyncratically though.

* Though not in terms of reform—I wouldn’t be interested in that. I think the better option would be egalitarian terror. That is, if we went straight to power. Otherwise, I think the Libertarians could do it much more effectively.

I suppose, to sum up my entire argument in a few sentences: “Today’s politics aren’t enough, nor are its people. Marxists, like me, and Libertarians are both niche political groups, and knowing that, we should say to Libertarians: ‘I think you people might be even more effective in re-politicizing politics today through terror than anything I could do, AND you demonize capitalism in doing it.’ After that we can start working on the true Revolutionary project.”

Aug 31, 2007 @ 11:12 PM