Quick insights…possible further reflections later? :)

I have recently been thinking about (and also reading a book that focuses on this issue some) the question that Marx poses of how the working class comes to move from a “class in itself” to a “class for itself”. In a sense this issue calls forth many other issues, topics. Among them; What is the place of popular education? What is the place of the intellectual (and the educator) in emancipatory struggles? In a very broad sense what is the place of ‘culture’ in the struggle to move away from Capitalist worldview and toward a more humanistic, Socialist worldview. To begin with it may be helpful to do some basic defining of terms.

For Marx the creation of the Capitalist system of production entailed the creation of a working class. In this sense all Class identity is a relational identity. There is no Working Class without a Capitalist Class or vice a versa. We frequently hear about the capacity for Capitalism to ‘create’ wealth or ‘generate’ wealth. What is frequently forgotten is that it concurrently generates immiseration and poverty. Given the length of this reflection, I don’t wish to get into the formula by which this occurs, you can find some of this in earlier reflections. The point is that the inception of Capitalism locates certain persons in roles not of their choosing. In a sense you don’t automatically ‘choose’ to be in the role of a Capitalist or Worker, and most certainly you don’t completely dictate the parameters of those roles within the economic sphere. Marx would say that to a great degree by living in Capitalism without having any ownership of the Means of Production you are automatically designated as a member of the Working Class. This means that all these individuals exist “in the Class itself”. This is not really a decision that requires any agency on the part of the individual (or even community). By the way, without totally distracting from the purpose of this entry I want to highlight that no amount of ‘positive thinking’ or ‘spiritual insights’ or even ‘knowledge’ changes this objective condition. However, there has to be a ‘shift’ that must occur for revolutionary change to proceed. This shift is the shift of the workers recognizing not only that they are part of the Working Class in Capitalism but most importantly that they have a common interest (and enemy) in their emancipatory struggle as A Member of The Working Class!

I have mentioned this before but one of the things that has truly been an obstruction in untangling this issue is that contemporary Capitalsim has generated such levels of wealth as to give certain member of the working class the illusion of ownership of their lives. I have mentioend before that this is most evident when we look at some of the members of the working class in certain industries. It is difficult to see a mult-millionair athlete in the same ‘location’ as a factory worker. Or a Oscar winning actor as a member of the same class as a cleaning lady.

What is most important to remember is that I am not being naive, I am not saying they have identical life-issues or that they are the same in some crude measure of day-to-day existence. What I am saying is that if we take seriously what it means to understand that a system critique we have to understand the needs of the system and who functions to fulfill the task reaquired by the needs of The System! One way to think of it is that a linch-pin found in an airplane bomber functions in the same way as a linch-pin found on a school desk. But obviously they are not the same thing…they operate in the same manner for the distinct item to function properly to accomplish its goal. A worker functions to generate surplus value which in Capitalism is hoarded (stolen) by the Capitalist. This is why we can say that every worker in Capitalism is underpaid! He/She generates more than they are remunerated. In fact Marx felt that there was an inverse relation between work and wealth. I will just give a simple example that might illustrate this point. I remember years (decades) ago seeing a catalogue in the faculty lounge at my high school. It was a high end dress/clothing catalogue. They had dresses in this catalogue that cost thousands of dollars. They were brand name dresses, which is to say that the designers names were the ‘selling’ point of the dress. It is highly possible that the person (probably a woman) that put in the most actual work (body movements) to create the dress got paid the least (certainly one of the lesser amounts!) This was especially true because months later I remember reading a lot about the ‘sweat shops’ being run by some of these brand name corporations. What is interesting is that I remember reading that many professional athletes make the equivalent of their salaries within the first third of their ‘season’. Again, more can be said about this but suffice to say that we can begin to understand the exploitive pattern that is inherent in Capitial accumulation.

Just simply to understand the logic of Capital accumulation would be a small step in moving from ‘class in itself’ to ‘class for itself’ consciousness. The problem is that Capitalism has also devised a million ways to divide and conquer whether that is race, gender, nationality etc. But it is also true in Class positionality. It has also devised a million diversion tactics to obscure the centrality of Class positionality in Capitalism. Lenin spoke eloquently of the Labour Aristocracy. This was a section of the working class that is easily bought off and convinced that they really do exist in rarefied reality apart from the logic of the System. We must find ways to break this brainwashing in ourselves and among our communities. I also want to end by saying something about ‘false consciousness’ which is not only a problem among the labour aristocracy but also among the poor working class. I was talking to a friend of mine and he spoke about how some ‘immigrants’ look to the middle-class U.S. citizens as existing in a ‘promised land’ of security. I certainly remember this feeling myself. My ‘white, middle-class friends seem to have it all…I am now very aware of how this ‘chasing’ the American Dream is inherent in Capitalist logic. This generating of a false consciousness is key to continued patterns of exploitation. As George Carlin was so fond of saying “It’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it”. I think we need to not overly romanticize the poor, and their insights, perceptions without engaging critically the question of how they are also drinking from the same poisoned well that we all are.

Here I will plead again for the need of an ongoing educational project for all members of the working class (the vast, vast majority of humanity) to seek not Capitalist (for profit) education/insights etc. but rather those that pursue the common good, public, socialist, communist, anarchist realities. This is going to be a journey whose destination can not be fully predetermined precisely because it rests on ongoing praxis and horizons not yet available to our vision. This journey for emancipation must be fought at every level…internally and externally.

Inorganic Intellectuals in the Time of Trump

This particular post was inspired by a question posed to me by my dear friend Maria. She asked me to clarify what is meant by the term ‘organic intellectual’. This was in particular to unpack the way it was used by the famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Maria’s primary question dealt with who could be considered an authentic organic intellectual. Did the person have to originate in the working class? or was it rather was it a manner of involving yourself in an act of solidarity with the working class (or the poor, the people etc.) that made you an organic intellectual? Did it also have to do with maintaining a close connection with the class and/or doing one’s analysis using their perspective as the base line for one’s analysis. Meaning did being an organic intellectual require that you use the hermeneutical lens of the working-class perspective to analyze all areas of social reality?

Before beginning a response to these questions, I would like to say that I am not very familiar with the work of Gramsci. I have read his Prison Notebooks, I have also read many of his supporters. I had just read a wonderful book called Using Gramsci: A New Approach by Michele Fillipini. I have also been blessed to read many others who use Gramsci’s work (including my esteemed friend Orlando Espin), I have also read some of the work done by Otto Maduro on Gramsci. As I was contemplating these issues, I found myself constantly returning to the questions or categories of marginalization vs exploitation. I have written a bit on this issue of marginalization/exploitation before, but I find that it is becoming very important to continue to highlight its relevance in the new context. I think that the distinctions between these two social relations offer us meaningful way for us to disentangle our understanding of what exactly is an organic intellectual. Particularly within the framework of a Marxist thinker like Gramsci.

It is important to begin with some of the basic features of Marxist theorie(s). These features can be seen as touchstones found in many of the traditional Marxist traditions. I want to list briefly some of these features: For Marxist

Capital is understood to be the ‘extraction’ of labor on the part of the owners in relation to the worker. In simple terms it means that all workers are ultimately ‘exploted’ labor in a Capitalist framerwork. Workers are never paid the identical amount that the worker produced in any given ‘day’. This is true wether one is a multimillionaire basketball player or a ‘piece-meal’ worker at a sweatshop.
The logic of Capital is that its primary (and overriding) motive in all issues of production will be the maximization of profit or the accumulation of wealth. This means that no matter what other motives are involved in production (Supply/Demand, status, human need etc.) the paramount force in all decisions on production will be profit (or accumulation of wealth).
The logic of Capital is transpersonal (or anapersonal) in terms of human agency. This is sometimes inadvertently expressed when a wealthy person, who is caught doing something that hints at immorality will say something like ‘If I didn’t do this, someone else would’. In one sense he is being 100% accurate. The logic of the system requires this function to occur. It will be done by someone. This is one of the way to understand Marxism as a critique of the System of Capital. It is not an attack on anyone (or two) Capitalist.
The nature of Class is always understood within a relational and dynamic reality. To speak of Class as a static entity is to completely misapprehend both the dynamic nature of Dialectical thinking and ongoing motion of all Dialectical movement. Class structure is not a static reality that is frozen in time. There are always trends, historical blocs (using a Gramscian category), alliances etc. that are part of authentic historical developement.

The reason this is so important to comprehend at the beginning of this question is to understand that within Capital(ism) there is already a center and periphery structure. This structure will be dynamic, ever evolving, chameleon like etc. This formation is not identical with the foundational feature of Capital exploitation. For me to be Anti-Capitalist is to be Anti-Exploitation. However, within any system, no matter, its level of exploitation or justice there will be some element of center and periphery. Now let us return to the place of the intellectual within any system in general and the organic intellectual in the specific place in Capitalism.

My understanding of Antonio Gramsci is that he was a Marxist. He was always a Marxist. He understood the foundational characteristic of Capitalism mentioned above. He also understood that this exploitation occurred at mutliple levels and required multi-layers of structures and institutional support. In a sense he understood that Capitialism to continue its inexorable movement towards exploitation (extraction of labor, accumulation of wealth as primary and exclusive goal of production etc.) it needed to recruit subjects at every level of social reality. This included the intellectual. All intellectuals are given certain ‘tools’ not given to others. But this is true for all workers. One can speak of organic (and inorganic auto-workers, pipefitters etc.). So what is the distinction that makes difference. My way of viewing this conundrum is to understand that we have conflated marginalization with being anti-exploitation. Let me now speak more specifically to how I view this playing out in the academy but also within broader social reality.

My experience is that Capitalism has been ‘forced’ to broaden its recruitment pool. Historically the ruling class has been White, property-owning males. This, simply put, was the make-up of the Capitalist Class at its inception. However, one of the wonderful (??) features of Capitalism is its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. At some point it needed to let member of communities that were previously marginalized (People of Color, Women etc.) into the framework of Capitalism. This did not actually change the ongoing marginalization of the communities (sexism is still very, very real, as are racialized hierarchies) What it was able to do was allow for certain members of said members of the communities to enter into the workings of the system to various degrees. It did this without in any way challenging the hegemonic elements of Capitalism. What this means is that some people might still be ‘marginalized’ within the context of larger forces but may be a reproducer and supporter of patterns of exploitation.

When we speak of what identifies an organic intellectual in the Gramscian sense we need to be clear that for him the primary (not exclusive!!) issue was to be against Capitalism. In this way he didn’t speak of the need to be marginalized or not. Gramsci was a trained journalist. He was deeply equipped, as is evidenced in his writing, with a depth and breadth of knowledge that might be the envy of many ‘intellectuals’ today! Did he ‘shy away from getting intellectual tools (weapons) to fight the enemy? I think not!

I hope and pray that I will always be marginalized from the social forces, institutions, communities etc. that are pro-exploitation in general and pro-Capitalist in particular. However, I don’t seek marginalization, nor do I hold it as a particular ‘badge’ or even an essentialized identity. I was born poor (cotton fields of Texas) but that doesn’t make me an organic (or inorganic) intellectual. What confers that degree of authenticity is my commitment to ending exploitation. I know of many people who are part of marginalized communities who have a deep loyalty to maintaining the status quo and explicitly a system that continues to exploit millions and millions of people. I remember hearing the term “sell-out” Or vendido, tio taco, uncle tom, etc. I have always wondered what that meant. I have come to realize that it indicates someone who is still a member of a marginalized group but seeks to reproduce the exploitative relations that have always hurt certain communities.

I want to end, in part, with talking about the ‘intellectual’, rather than the organic, part of organic intellectual. I think it is safe to say that certain levels of education do give us a certain degree of privilege, particularly in certain situations and institutions. This is certainly true for some of us with advance degrees. Although some of us are finally awakening to the reality of Capital logic (adjunct professors with advance degrees sleeping in cars!) we must not be seduced into the illusion that becoming in any way part of ‘the center’ in Capitalism allows you to change the foundational structure of Capitalism. It is very clear to me when you see the multi-millionaire baseball players being ‘locked-out’ of playing baseball in the same way that striking auto workers can be ‘locked-out’ of their places of employment. These auto workers are geniuses in ways that I will never be, they are in a very real sense ‘intellectuals‘ in their fields. One large difference is that they have much less of an illusion of their place in the hierarchy of Capital. What is still frustrating at time is to convince auto-workers that the multi-millionaire athlete is also part of the working class. I am under no illusion that their lifestyle is similar but lifestyle comparisons is one of the ways that Capital has been able to ‘divide and conquer’ us…not merely through race, gender etc.

For me an organic intellectual is anyone who uses his or her capacities to end the profound and inhumane exploitation that this system produces, perpetuates, etc. This will at times put you in the periphery and at other times may have you be among the center (“In the world but not of it”). However, for me what is important is to remember that Gramsci understood the logic of Capitalism and saw his work as an intellectual to ultimately overthrow this inhumane system. For me as a person of Faith this also requires that I never lose site of the deep humanity found within everyone, including in particular way the individual Capitalist. It also requires a deep commitment on my part to speak critically about the sickening level of destruction being caused by this system in relation to our environment and ecology. It also requires that I never seek to ‘get to the center’ to try to change the system, knowing that the very desire to ‘get to the center’ indicates that the system has already gained victory over me! I have already become inorganic (dead)…

Class Logic/Class Patterns vs Class Consciousness

I have recently begun to try and find ways to speak of how the systemic and hegemonic qualities of Capital functions in our world. The most common term used to deal with questions of individual conduct and actions within Capitalism is the language of Class Consciousness. In Leftist (particularly Marxist) circles we can speak of operating from within a place of Class consciousness. This is especially true in terms of how various communities and individuals operate in their quotidian existence. We speak of how certain communities or individuals are aware or not of their class position or interests etc. While this is still an important aspect of understanding all social reality, I will suggest that it is indispensable but insufficient in fully grasping how it operates in creating the world we inhabit. In fact, I believe one cannot truly grasp reality without a large and clear vision of class consciousness. This statement is made all the more tragic in that most academics and intellectuals in the United States have what Dr. King termed a ‘moribund fear of communism’, and anything attached to it as a tool of analysis. I also find that given our highly individualistic manner of viewing reality the language of individuals becoming or bring class conscious can also serve to obscure an important element of not only Capitalist reality but all economic reality. This obscuring becomes even more pronounced because the dominant understanding of the individual is an atomized entity who chooses to engage in various communities or social realities. So, the power, authority, and function of Class is predicated on the individuals buying into this consciousness. I think it is important to highlight the ability of Class consciousness to operate autonomous of the individual or even the community’s awareness. In this sense I like the phrase of Class Logic (or Class Patterns).

In speaking of Class Logic, we can speak of how Capital as a system operates in a hegemonic manner irrespective of how people desire or choose to relate to it. There are many reasons why, for me, this has become important to address. One of the main reasons is that I have recently noticed how people speak of how part of the problem of suffering of the world is due to certain personal (read individual) qualities have become stronger within our society. “People are so much more selfish, greedy, self-centered etc.)” then in previous eras. The reality is that, as a species, these qualities within our species have probably not changed that much in our lifetime. We have not recently grown a greediness gland that has made us extra greedy, or selfish or anything else. The reality is that as a species we are pretty much the same as we have been for hundreds if not thousands of years.

It should come as no surprise that one of the reasons that I have become interested in this issue, besides what is mentioned above, is that of reading a book entitled Using Gramsci: A New Approach by Michele Fillippini. In the book he revisits many of the key themes and insights found in the corpus of Antonio Gramsci, this obviously includes the ideas of ideology and hegemony. In the text he notes ‘that there is only one definition of ideology in the Prison Notebooks, where it is described as a ‘scientific, energetic, educational hypothesis that is verified <and criticized> by the real developement of history, that is, it is turned into a science.’ After stating this he speak of some fundamental principles that are established from this definition.

There are many implications to this definition a brief but incomplete summary of these principles is found below:

Ideology has a hypothetical character which suggests that ‘it does not contain any principle of truth…but is open to ‘truth procedures’.
It has an element of education and is linked to the transformation of the subjects it impacts
It is always linked to the ‘real development of history’ and because of this is always influx and ‘susceptible to gradual adjustments and never formalized in any doctrine’
Ideology is ‘turned into a science’ where it does, in fact, contain ‘a certain degree of objectivity (always understood as historically subjective).’

One of the wonderful developments is to understand ideology as organic and not static allows us to move away from the notion that we are just subjects who are filled with certain static characteristics like greed, kindness, selfishness, generosity etc. And that we are victims to the way in which these things have changed over historical time. Ideology becomes a very real place of contestation and struggle in the emancipatory struggle for the creation of a Beloved Community. But this is done precisely by what Gramsci terms a Philosophy of Praxis. This empowers us to understand that historical conditions have to be changed not ‘merely’ the changing the hearts of individuals. This also further clarifies what, for Gramsci means by the way in which hegemony is a totalizing process. It impacts both the inner experience of individuals and the social/political/economic realities of the moment. What for Gramsci is sometimes referred to as the Historical Bloc.

I am constantly amazed at how people wish to ‘personalize’ the political. I think this is part of the problem with our current misunderstood ‘polarized’ worldview of political discourse. I frequently hear, why do you hate Elon Musk, Bill Gates Jr. etc. I have to remind the people that I don’t know these people (nor do I suspect that the people making this observation do?). The question is not what Bill Gates or Elon Musk think or feel but in fact what these peoples ideological reality has them think or feel. If ideology functions somewhat (not totally) independent of an individuals personality or choice we can speak of a transpersonal or depersonal element to ideological formation. It is not they (Musk, Gates et al) who possess these thoughts, feelings etc. but rather given their location in this Historical Bloc they are possessed by these thoughts or feelings. To that degree it is about the necessity of altering the historical conditions under which all of us live for us to become a truly Beloved Community.

What I think we have to begin to understand is that much of what we think/feel/experience is shaped based on our location within a predetermined social environment. Yes, the primary (not exclusive) element of this environment is Class position. Teaching at many institutions I have been blessed to see the effect of ‘immersion’ experiences on a person’s foundational worldview. I am always stunned when I see a ‘business major’ student finally make it to the Frontera/Border to see how the undocumented are treated within the Capitalist (Neoliberal Free Market) system. It is for them a rude awakening how little this system which claims to aspirational claims about Freedom and Choice don’t give a damn about either of these things when it comes to these communities. Virtually no amount of them being told how Capitalism ‘Looks’ different depending on your Class location will do the trick of a day in these various realities. No amount of exposure to other viewpoints will alter one’s position but it begins us to allow a fluidity which an begin to awaken us to what Gramsci called a ‘war of positionality’ that can begin to create new layers of Class consciousness. This along with a continued application of his wonderful Philosophy of Praxis may allow us to slowly steer the course of humanity away from this death dealing system and towards a more Beloved Community.

I want to end on a very practical note. I am not naive, I am very well aware that for the Beloved Community to exist individual people who currently inhabit a certain social space (the wealthy) will cease to exist as a Class. Not the individuals but the social space they inhabit. That reality will no longer exist. To the degree that they are wedded to that identity it will be a painful experience for the individual. I have a simple example that may clarify this issue. There are certain things that I could do in my 20s, 30s even 40s that I can no longer do in my 60s (soon to be mid-60s!). I am still alive (thank God!) but certain ways that I inhabited social reality are no longer available to me. To the degree that I am wedded to that identity I must ‘die’ so that my authentic (healthy) Rene Sanchez can live at my current age. We must never lose the humanity of our sisters and brothers, but we must be honest about what it will entail for us to transform this profoundly suffering world into something more closely resembling a heaven on earth. Knowing that we will always fall short, and therefore always in need of generosity and forgiveness from our fellow creatures.

The Grand Illusion of Capital: Capitals ultimate ‘illusion’

“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration” (Abraham Lincoln, State of the Union, December 3, 1861)

One of the most annoying, frustrating etc. experiences in my academic, educational, and intellectual life has been the unwillingness of many of my colleagues to explore the rich history of anti-Capitalist thinking. This of course, extends specifically to the Marxist traditions, but also has a variety of perspectives.

During the Mass the priest recites the words “Fruit of the Vine and work of human hands.” in reference to what was necessary to ‘make’ the bread and wine. What is most interesting to me is that the priest doesn’t mention an ‘investor’ or ‘entrepreneur’ that was needed to make the Bread of Life. It appears that someone didn’t ‘need’ to ‘invest’ in the idea of actually making food for our species. It is interesting that in the ultimate experience of our Union (communion) with God as humans we are told what is “indispensable” in creating life is nature and human hands? One of the greatest ‘illusions’ that has been perpetrated by Capital (and the Capitalist class) is the illusion of an autonomous thing called Capital. This illusion has been obviously even more perpetrated in the newest iteration of Capital which some have chosen to term Neoliberalism.

I was recently talking to a friend of mine who is also an academic and he reminded me of how ‘nothing gets done without people willing to invest in an idea’. I had many concerns and questions for him. I would also pose them to the reader. I would be interested in how others might answer it. (1) What does the term ‘invest’ actually mean? What does it ‘look’ like? If it is giving money so that the necessary items can be bought to make the item; the obvious question is ‘where did that person get the money to begin with?” (2) Does our species actually need people to ‘invest’ in our instinct for life in a very concrete way? I find it difficult to believe that people had to be ‘convinced’ to ‘invest’ in the ideas of chairs, prior to which I assume we were all standing around getting very damn tired? 😛

We have spoken so much of the ‘erasure’ of various communities in the larger historical narrative. This includes the ‘whitewashing’ of history or history as told from a Eurocentric perspective. Or how Patriarchy has silenced the voice of women throughout history. Or the incredible silencing of the Trans perspective throughout all of history. I would like to suggest that one of the most pernicious silencing has happened towards our working class community members whose ‘work of human hands’ has allowed our species to thrive. This is especially true in relation to our capacity to work together in ways that allowed us to flourish among other groups who clearly were superior to us in many very important categories.

One of the reasons why this element of brainwashing that Capital has been able to accomplish so masterfully is of such vital importance to call out is that this illusion it truncates our capacity to respond to the situation at hand. In many ways we are constantly fighting shadows as though they were reality. I have spoken about this before but two of the ways this illusion manifests itself in our public discourse is

(1) In the ‘natural’ language of private property. We don’t realize that the concept of private property, particularly in its current iteration, is merely a functional myth to support wealth accumulation. and

(2) Because we begin from this illusion, we immediately deal with the question of life on earth and all political/economic questions from the location of ‘distribution.’ We ask ourselves “By what right do we have to ask Elon Musk, Bill Gates etc. to share ‘their’ wealth (which they of course are the sole creators of!).

Because of this error, we (the much larger percentage of our species) begin from a place of defensiveness. For me this is not a ‘personal’ attack on wealthy people. ALL OF US CREATE THINGS WITH “fruit of the vine and work of human hand(s).” This in no way would negate the incredible amount of ‘work of human hands’ done by anyone among our species. To the degree that many people are deeply concerned with being ‘woke’ during these times, I think that our capacity to awaken from the dreams (actually nightmares for most people) that Capital is trying to make us believe brought forth by this insight is an important first step in our liberation.

Neoliberalism

I am still learning to understand what it means to live in an age of unprecedented uncertainty. I believe that the ideology which can go by many names, including Neoliberalism has so ‘distorted’ reality in such a manner that it may be beyond repair. In one sense Neoliberalism is just another iteration of Capitalism. Yet, I can’t help but feel that this iteration is of a particularly damaging mode precisely because it operates at such a subtle level. This means that, like the great Italian Marxist much of our oppression and exploitation now occurs by ‘consent rather thatn coericion’. I am also aware that this is an ongoing struggle. In this entry I would like to point out somethings that I think might help us fight the old/new patterns of exploitation which plague not only our species but the precious planet.

I would say that the first task is our need to be very explicit in our position as Anti-Capitalist. I also think that our critique towards the system has to be precise without being pedantic. I think we have to be willing to embrace an element of more traditional categories and understandings around political-economic theories. There is a famous story told of how Karl Marx once said “I am not a Marxist”. It was, I believe, given in the spirit of not wanting to be dogmatic in ones understanding of Marxist tradition(s). I think that it is very, very important to be vigilant to avoid dogamtic thinking, however I also believe that it is important to truly engage any and all intellectual traditions in a way that shows that we are sincere and serious about their content. I think we are waaaaaaaaaay to ‘cautious’ about not wanting to appear ‘like Marxist’! So much so, that I know many United States intellectual that are profoundly ignorant of Marx. I honestly believe that this is completely unexcusable given that he is without question one of the best, most precise critics of Capitalism. I wish to state that I am not saying agree with him (or don’t agree with him!). I am saying that, given that we live in world that is profoundly shaped by Capitalist logic, reality, concepts etc. it is imbecilic to be ignorant of the work of one of its seminal critics. One of the danger of this degree of ignorance in the United States can be seen in the example of a recent book written by Mark R. Levin entitled American Marxism. To say that this work is a tragic waste of paper is to be a bit too generous. I do feel sad that natural resources were used to produce this work. However, I have talked to some people who have read it and think that, in doing that, they have a ‘grasp’ of Marx and the Marxist tradtion(s). We, particularly the educated elite have to be willing to familarize the general population enough with Marxism to know when a intellectual hack is doing a butcher job. It is not enough to say. “I don’t like Mark Levin”. You will just be told that you are against his political perspective. It is very important to be clear that he is categorically and factually incorrect in his understanding of the Marxist tradition(s). The other benefit of familiarizing yourself with Marxist thought is that it will make it ‘less scary’ for the lay person. I will end this section by reccommending the work of Richard Wolfe. This includes his online presence. He is a remarkable economist that is within the Marxist tradtion. Unlike some academics (you know who you are! LOL) he is able to ‘talk regular’ so that he can explain Marxist theories with a great facility. Great work!!! I would also reccomend the work of Hadas Thier.
I have spoken about this earlier in various formats, but I think we must move away from our ‘silo’ liberation mentality. This includes a very intentional and ongoing commitment to the Other. Here I will go back to some of my work that I did in writing my dissertation. I did some study on the work of Emmanuel Levinas for my doctoral project. Levinas spoke eloquently about the deep commitment to the Other. He spoke of the birth of Ethics as beginning with the encounter with the Other. I certainly found his work incredibly convincing. I was also deeply moved by the Cuban-American theologian, Justo Gonzalez as describing Jesus as embodying the life of a “man for others’ in the most profoundest sense of that phrase. I believe that the best way to manifest this ethical insight expressed as a deep commitment in solidarity with the Other we must be willing to rethink some traditional categories of liberation struggles. Pope Francis speaks of the ‘hyper individualism’ that is so toxic to our world today. I would argue that this ‘hyper-individualistic’ worldview is sometimes carried into our liberation struggles. To give a simple example I obviously don’t just see myself as Dr. Rene Sanchez but I view myself as a proud Chicano Theologian/Ethicist. I take seriously how my accomplishment of a Ph.D. is also helping (in some form) the larger struggle of Raza to dismantle the shackles of White Supremacist existence. But I also am aware that in one sense my focus on my Chicanismo is another form of ‘hyper-individualism’! Only now I have defined the ‘individual’ within the context of the Chicano/Raza experience. It is still in the end about me, in some iteration. I used to joke with my students about how Justice (Just Us) could never be about Just Us! 🙂 But I now realize it can also never be about any Just Us. So that Chicano Justice can never be about Just Us Chicanos! Catholic Justice can never be about Just Us Catholic’s. etc. I believe Levinas’ insight is correct. Ethics (or Justice) begins with the Other! Simply put, no iteration of ‘me’ is acceptable to do the work necessary to liberate us from our current predicament. I think we have to begin to create IN EVERY SOCIAL MOVEMENT a particular aspect of that movement whose sole purpose is to concern themselves (as a community/movement) with the well being of another community. The key, is to do this with great intention. This would include giving material support to the other communities. This will require a massive shift in our priorities. I recall Bernie Sanders in some of his early presidential rally’s asking everyone in atttendance to commit to ‘fight’ for people that didn’t look like them, think like them etc. This call for deep solidarity is an absolute must for the struggles ahead.
The third feature will appear to be a reversal of all that is said above…lol. Just see it as ‘dialectical move’. 🙂 . I think we have to create alternative communities and resources etc. outside of the circuitry of Capitalist structures. I see this especially in 2 areas. The first is in education. The Right has been absolutely brilliant at understanding the importance of attacking the foundation of an educated citizenry by attacking the education system. Their attack on public education is a clever and smart way to create the necessary preconditions for exploitation and domination. We need to create an entire way of speaking to the need for popular education. This would entail the creation of some new strategies and a reinvigoration of older strategies; here I will only give two projects that I see as indispensable as we move forward. What I mean by this is that these projects wil have to be worked on in order to liberate ourselves from our current level of ignorance/intellectual torper.
- We must be clear that education should not (and can not ) properly function within the logic of the Market. There are certain things that are destroyed by placing them within Market parameters. This will go against the foundational logic of Neoliberalism. It is one of the “Big Lies” that we have been sold. Simply put, it is a load of crap. We must be willing to openly admit that all education is a kind of indoctrination. There is no ‘neutral’ education. That is a myth. There is no ‘source’ of knowledge that exists outside of human experience. Because this is the case, all education is ultimately a profoundly contested terrain. We only weaken our position when we try to speak of a ‘good education’ that doesn’t take sides. To paraphrase Howard Zinn; “You can’t be neutral on a moving train”. One of the ways we will have to confront this reality is in the painful way in which education, particularly private education (especially Cathloic schools which I am so familiar with) is beholden to wealthy endowments and corporate structures. The very nature of this relationship creates conditions that make genuine liberative education impossible.
- The second area that needs a strong reimagining and reconceptualizing is the area of government. We must be clear about the need to reinvigorate faith in politics in general and specifically in the State. There are many ways to understand this question. I have found the work of Quinn Slobodian, and Ellen Meiksins Wood among so many others to be helpful in better understanding this issue. One of the fundamental features, and another of the big lies of Neoliberalism is the ongoing ‘bad mouthing’ of Government. This intentionally opaque term has been used to discredit one of the only instruments found in society that can combat the evils of Capital. We seem to hear about how ‘the government’ is always a inefficient, bureaucratic, regulatory monster which only exists to impede our freedoms and invade our lives. Making our lives a living hell. The subtlety with which this concept has been introduced to the ‘common sense’ of the people is incredible. Taking the form of comedic jibes offered by everyone from late night hosts to ‘liberal’ pundits that claim to be for liberation. This has allowed the rise of many dangerous ideologies to appear rational, this includes but is not limited to the most absurdist Libertarian positions having some cache and gravitas in our political discourse. I wish to be clear that I am deeply troubled by how the Capitalist Class has captured the functioning of all aspects of the State. However the fact that the government is working remarkably well for the Ruling Class is precisely why I know it can work so well for the common good. One of the ideas conveyed in the writing of Slobodian is that the Ruling Class actually ‘encases’ itself in the government in order to protect its actions and execute some of the necessary actions for it to continue to exploit, accumulate wealth etc. The State also functions to not only protect property, but to give them an easy scapegoat when it comes to explaining the contradictions found in Capitalism (over-regulation is the problem, or government interference etc.). This disallows the larger population to marshall evidence for a more accurate critique of why things are as they are. So much more could be said about this, but suffice to say that we must find a way to speak of the government, and the State in a way that shows our ongoing support for its importance in creating a beloved community. We have to articulate a vision of the government as an instrument that is indispensable in the creation of a more just social order. We can do this in such a way that avoids the mistakes made in the past, including the ‘state-run’ Capitialist enterprise that has at times been mistaken for an authentic Socialist State.

One of the insights brough to forefront by Antonio Gramsci is that the ruling class who is in part defined by ‘owning the means of production’ would eventually own the ‘means of mental production’. This of course would include the ideas that were circulated among the population. This comes in the form of realizing who. in fact, controls the media, education, social content (both entertainment and informational). This would include understanding the profound way in which ownership begats perspective and interpretation. It is always astounding to me how truncated our vision of the possible is in the United States. But this is true all over the world to varying degrees. One of the ways that Neoliberalism has succeeded is that it has been a master at creating a seamless ‘natural’ world in which this is ‘just the way it is’. This includes re-writing history, science, culture etc. The absolute most cogent and precise artculation of this issue is found in an article written by George Monbiot in The Guardian entitled “Neoliberalism-the Ideology at the Root of All Our Problems. (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot). In this article he does a masterful job of summarizing the way in which Neoliberalism has ‘hijacked’ virtually all social discourse and reality all while staying ‘invisible’. I think one of the great functions of Marxism (among other Radical critiques) is that it denaturalizes the social reality in which we find ourselves. I remember that a famous line by the comedian/Prophet George Carlin is that “It’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it”. I think it is time we wake up from our slumber.