The title is the fitting first sentence of David Bromwich’s review of Niall Ferguson’s latest, Civilization: The West And The Rest in the NYRB. I couldn’t read the whole piece because I don’t have a subscription to the NYRB, but I think the first line is probably sufficient. The same sort of (hilarious) lament hangs impotently over this Der Spiegel profile of Jürgen Habermas:

 “Habermas is angry. He’s really angry. He is nothing short of furious — because he takes it all personally.

He leans forward. He leans backward. He arranges his fidgety hands to illustrate his tirades before allowing them to fall back to his lap. He bangs on the table and yells: “Enough already!” He simply has no desire to see Europe consigned to the dustbin of world history.

“I’m speaking here as a citizen,” he says. “I would rather be sitting back home at my desk, believe me. But this is too important. Everyone has to understand that we have critical decisions facing us. That’s why I’m so involved in this debate. The European project can no longer continue in elite modus.”

Enough already! Europe is his project. It is the project of his generation.”

He takes the future so personally that he’s willing to leave his desk. And what exactly is the future he’s trying to protect?

“He truly believes in the old, ordered democracy.”

It’s a justified fear – who among us will stand for old, ordered democracy? Not the grand project, which can’t trust its member states to self-flagellate effectively. Not the Greek people, who seem to think democracy has something to do with stones. Not technocrat-in-chief Obama, whose former advisor Peter Orszag wrote “we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.” Not the conservatives, whose policies party-member David Frum describes as “a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.” And not the international youth movement, with our anarchic occupations and twinkling consensus fingers. Even red China thinks the US needs a dose of austerity. All that remains are the dying philosophers and a few of their prematurely greying adepts. And what the fuck is Habermas even to do when he gets up from his desk – make a beeline for the agora? The guy hasn’t even heard of Twitter. For the first time in my young memory we have somewhat generalized political struggle, and the social democrats have neither an army nor a flag.

Even the most optimistic of us on the street-hooligan left wouldn’t have guessed the legacy of parliamentary democracy would shrivel so quickly. The battle between late capitalism and the public sphere is long over. In retrospect it really wasn’t much of a contest – nor was there only one winner between the two – but it has catapulted us toward something different. A sequence of global resistance that goes beyond reaction has finally found purchase, but it’s decidedly not social democratic in expression or organization. I’m not sure how clear this will be until the election, and maybe the the coöptupation will get older Democrats to the polls, but I doubt it. The death knell will be when the American left is at its most energized in memory and makes the conscious decision not to vote. And there won’t be a one of us who seriously believes blue team will take the message and nominate Bernie Sanders in ’16 or that Peter Camejo and the green team will make it any more interesting.

This moment is revolutionary and/or it’s a part of a penultimate accumulation phase, but progressive it is not. The social democrats’ best reform efforts haven’t been able to slow even the rate of increase in the working class’s immiseration. A state-supported minimum income, socialized healthcare, and paid vacation all sound great, but they’re about as likely as full employment. That is, structurally impossible. And so-called transitional demands like these aren’t much help when they provoke speculative analysis rather than revolutionary consciousness. The point isn’t to figure out the right alignment of stars necessary for the capitalist state to provide free higher education for all, it’s to reveal that it cannot and will not do so.

To be done then, with social democracy in practice and in aspiration. We must shut our ears to the civilizationists’ plaintive death warbles. As Guatemalan President Juan Jose Arevalo said (as quoted by Corey Robin in The Reactionary Mind): “We are socialists because we live in the twentieth century.” Following Arevalo, I think we can begin to periodize social-democracy. That is, to bury it. The time of the industrial unions is over, the workers’ parties as well. If the annual Shirley Jackson special that is Black Friday tells us anything, it’s that we live amidst actually existing barbarism. The twentieth century made its choice, we won’t get the same question.

To be clear, as Evan names his blog, that choice was always socialism and/or barbarism – we got some of each. We witness the savagery of civilization every day, it looks just like the photogenic Linda Katehi. Public servants (state university employees, no less) attack kids, while the offending forces of anarchy hold each other tight and scream. When you push it a little, civil society is a warm glass of capsicum.

This isn’t an argument for novelty for novelty’s sake. As people who study history are good at explaining, nothing new ever really happens. I’m sure there was a pirate ship or a Quaker colony or something that used the same organizational model as OWS. No one’s claiming to have invented horizontalism or the critique of representative democracy, nor would it matter if they had. The important thing is that, raised in a tunnel of neon bulbs, we’re still able to recognize natural light when we see a trickle of it. Struggle and victory don’t look the way we were told they would, but neither does anything else in our lives. So we’ll pick up the bricks and mortar, seal the way back, and take to the light with pickaxes. Let Habermas fret in his crypt. Let the dead elect a burial commission.

 
  • Ian Keenan

    Malcolm,

    I enjoyed this thoughtful column not wholly because my taste for ridicule of Habermas’ political positions cannot ever be fully satiated.

    The Marxist critique of democracy is a venerated one, and part of a debate that can exist alongside the use of democracy for Socialist goals, which has been successful in different ways all across South America, a continent where armed rebellion has been less effective and in some cases less benign.  Socialized medicine is not structurally impossible. A raised minimum wage and paid vacation can also be more effectively legislated, but here your main point relates to the currently widespread unemployment that is endemic to the dominant economic system, and is well taken.

    By no means am I attempting to suggest a reliance on democratic institutions in the absence of other tactics such as the current modes of activism, or as an consummate end of history or anything else.

    What I think can be gained by directing the current activism to democratic institutions is the procedural issues that are not covered by corporate media and therefore receive less public attention: a paper trail for the ballot, breaking the media monopoly and restoring the public airways, public financing of campaigns.  These proposals counteract tactics and current methods that are motivated by the fear that democracy will create social change for the benefit of the majority of the public.  The traditional Marxist viewpoint would hold (to the extent that it can be summarized or anticipated) that elections rigged by computers, monopolized media, and campaigns run by bribery are symptoms of the larger disease that is democracy, but analysis is not the only way to put this to the test: public support for those who have waged these campaigns, campaigns that can be added to in number and differing strategies, can ask the question in another way.  Occupy Wall Street represents an opening to make these procedural arguments, which cannot be rebutted, only suppressed, heard.

    Whatever the cause, my emphasis on the procedural may sound Habermasian, and that is not out of a belief that the ideal speech act, pre-ideal speech act or post-ideal speech act will produce a particular effect, but that the restoration of free, equal public speech over the voice of the monopoly is not in conflict with the emancipatory effects sought by a world majority.  Best, Ian Keenan

  • Dissent3d

    I don’t know if this is part of Malcolm’s reasoning for saying a full welfare state is structurally impossible, but it’s definitely a large part of why I think so:

    Climate Change causing massive land degradation
    http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/95153/icode/

    International Energy Agency underplays peak oil
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Peak_oil

    Because of capitalist overreach, and expanding industrialization in general, we don’t live in a post-scarcity world anymore.  In theory, we could cut and redistribute our military budgets, but we need those to plunder resources and keep the markets open.  In theory, we could drastically increase taxes, but that really would slow the economy down, because the only kind of Keynesianism that’s ever worked in the US is military Keynesianism.  And the entire world economy is connected to that military Keynesianism, especially Europe and Japan who’s welfare prosperity is further tied to the fact that the US has shouldered all their imperial/ military responsibilities. 

    The first red flag I got that  Doug Henwood was full of shit is that he consistently denied peak oil.  Social democracy is simply incompatible with ecological reality.

  • Stephen CM

    “The time of the industrial unions is over” Why exactly? Is it because ‘industry’ is not the same beast?

  • Steve Jobs

    Habermas is a clown now and of course the German
    SPD is a grotesquery, as is the parliamentary charade in general across
    the world today.

    But let’s not do away entirely with a rank-and-file labor movement that
    seems to be finally getting somewhere.  Malcolm mentions the UC Davis
    situation; but please recall that only last spring radical teachers’
    assistants at the UC brought back their union from the brink of
    irrelevancy through a union election (in which they had to fight bitterly to have their votes counted); and the resources of the union
    have gone a long way in supporting the spontaneous direct action of the
    Occupiers across the University.

    Likewise, rank-and-file militancy among Chinese workers at the heart of the workshop of the world is a serious thing; this year alone saw a record number of spontaneous strikes there.

    More importantly, at the register of theory, we need to be clear about just why it is that Marxism has hitched itself to the fate of the working class–it’s not because of some moral imperative.  It’s because the working class exists at the point of production, and is therefore best positioned to invert the use of the world’s productive capacity.

    A politics based in apocalyptic moralism, unmoored from the working class, strikes me as dangerously close to a bourgeois romanticism.