thenation--2020-07-31--The Democratic Platform on China Is a Failure of Imagination

Recent months have seen a rapid deterioration in the US-China relationship , which many are calling a new Cold War .
In part this is an attempt by Donald Trump and the GOP to use China-bashing to save themselves from a rout in the November elections despite their catastrophic mishandling of the pandemic .
But Trump ’ s anti-China strategy has also been driven by extreme military hawks and economic nationalists .
The recently released 2020 Democratic Party Platform suggests that rather than repudiating these toxic forces , Democrats are incorporating much of their basic worldview .
If this does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and China will remain on a path to confrontation even if Biden and the Democrats win in November .
The China bashers in the White House imagine that Washington is in an apocalyptic conflict with Beijing .
Last week Pompeo delivered a major speech in which he argued that China is an existential threat to the “ free world , ” declaring , “ If we bend the knee now , our children ’ s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party.
” Pompeo ’ s top adviser on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States and China are headed for “ unavoidable confrontation.
” These ultrahawks believe that protecting the United States from being taken over by the Chinese Communist Party requires going on the offense against China as quickly as possible .
They are doing everything they can to push the US-China relationship past the point of no return , to poison it so deeply that Biden and the Democrats will not be able to undo the damage and will have no choice but to embrace a spiraling conflict , even if they win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform , to its credit , does disavow some key points in Trump ’ s anti-China strategy , including his “ reckless trade war with China ” and the “ trap of a new Cold War.
” It avoids repeating the most inflammatory rhetoric of the right , such as scapegoating China for the pandemic , and notes that “ the China challenge is not primarily a military one.
” It affirms the need for “ cooperation on issues of mutual interest like climate change and nonproliferation.
” ( Oddly , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic is not mentioned . )
Despite these bright spots , the platform reaffirms a framework of competition and rivalry and prioritizes this over building new forms of cooperation .
Preserving this hostile framework renders the Democrats helpless to divert the US-China relationship from its current course toward conflict and catastrophe .
The platform retains a commitment to maintaining US military hegemony in the South China Sea , calling China ’ s military buildup there “ aggression ” and “ intimidation ” that must be resisted .
The US Navy ’ s increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , not criticized as any form of “ aggression , ” although this is in China ’ s backyard and 5,000 miles away from the nearest US state , Hawaii .
Committing the Democrats to a strategy of military containment in this way feeds into China ’ s entirely credible fear that it is at risk of being strangled by the US military in its own backyard , and risks open military conflict .
The Democrats also maintain the idea that China is an economic threat to the United States and reaffirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are at the heart of the current trade war , including “ illegal subsidies and theft of intellectual property , ” claiming that Trump has actually been too soft on protecting intellectual property rights .
But intellectual property rights are primarily a form of corporate power .
The intellectual property system inflates drug prices so that pharmaceutical companies can profit , is currently undermining international collaboration to develop treatments and a vaccine , and interferes with the distribution of the clean energy technology that is necessary to beat climate change .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not strengthened .
As for the accusation of “ illegal subsidies , ” this is an attack on China ’ s very successful use of economic planning .
The United States should itself engage in more economic planning—both the pandemic and climate change necessitate this—rather than demanding that China end its use of economic planning .
Economic planning is at the heart of China ’ s economic growth strategy and therefore nonnegotiable .
For Democrats to maintain this demand merely ensures a continuation of economic conflict , which inevitably feeds military tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democratic administration to taking measures against China over the abuses of democratic and human rights in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang .
It is important that the Democratic Party take a stand on these issues , and it is strategically damaging to let the Republicans position themselves as the champions of human rights in China , as has largely been the case to date .
However , US government pressure is ineffective when the relationship is already so fundamentally hostile that Chinese elites expect that US aggression will continue no matter what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Obama adviser Ryan Hass has written about the failure of US pressure to stop China ’ s crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong , “ The U.S. posture of unswerving hostility toward China…lowered the risk that any action on Hong Kong could worsen U.S.-China ties , since they already had become adversarial.
” In the case of Hong Kong , economic sanctions are actually accelerating the assimilation of Hong Kong into mainland China .
As Wilfred Chan writes , current strategy follows a “ suicidal logic.
” In addition , the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to questions of Islamophobia , mass incarceration , and crackdowns on protesters makes it easy for Chinese elites to delegitimize pressure from the US over human rights .
We should be realistic and acknowledge that the ability of the US government to influence the domestic affairs of a country as powerful as China is limited .
That said , to increase the effectiveness of pressure on China over rights issues , a Democratic government must chart an alternative path beyond the US-China conflict , while also addressing our own failure to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the impact is likely to be inflammatory , without improving protections for anyone ’ s rights .
Although the platform commits the Democrats to confront China in all these ways , it also seems to imagine that we can maintain robust cooperation to meet global challenges like climate change at the same time .
Its authors may recall that the US and USSR were able to collaborate over important issues , such as smallpox and arms control , despite being locked in the Cold War .
As some have argued , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similarly ought to be able to cooperate around shared challenges such as the pandemic and climate change , even as the US-China rivalry intensifies .
But the Cold War is a false analogy .
The height of the Cold War coincided with strong economic growth in both the US and USSR , at a time when each maintained economies that were largely independent of each other .
This allowed both countries to become more prosperous despite their differences , which in turn facilitated cooperation around shared challenges .
The current US-China conflict , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dysfunctions in the global neoliberal system .
This dynamic makes the relative stability of the Cold War unattainable .
The global economy never truly recovered from the 2008 financial crisis , and at a global level , economic growth has been weak .
This has led to zero-sum competition over shrinking opportunities for growth .
Such competition is particularly fierce between the United States and China—which , for example , are both vying for control over the most profitable industries in the tech sector .
This zero-sum competition has fed a growth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and beyond , and that nationalism has led to confrontational policies that only make things worse .
The US-China trade war , for example , threatened to push the entire global economy into recession even before the pandemic , further weakening growth , and further feeding a spirit of zero-sum competition .
We are thus at risk of falling into a feedback loop in which escalating nationalism drives conflict , which worsens the dysfunctions of the global system , intensifying competitive pressures and feeding further nationalist conflict .
These underlying trends in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are more akin to the lead up to World War II than to the Cold War .
Those who imagine that US-China cooperation can coexist with a relatively stable , low-conflict US-China rivalry misunderstand this .
The only way out is to radically transform the global system , a project that will require greater cooperation , not competition , between Washington and Beijing .
It is up to the left to develop this alternative , to build power around it both at the grassroots level and in partnership with progressive leaders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if Biden and the Democratic Party win in November , they will prove incapable of overcoming the Republicans ’ efforts to lock the United States and China into conflict , creating a more dangerous and more deeply divided world .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Recent months have seen a rapid deterioration in the US-China relationship, which many are calling a new Cold War. In part this is an attempt by Donald Trump and the GOP to use China-bashing to save themselves from a rout in the November elections despite their catastrophic mishandling of the pandemic. But Trump’s anti-China strategy has also been driven by extreme military hawks and economic nationalists. The recently released 2020 Democratic Party Platform suggests that rather than repudiating these toxic forces, Democrats are incorporating much of their basic worldview. If this does not change, then the United States and China will remain on a path to confrontation even if Biden and the Democrats win in November.
The China bashers in the White House imagine that Washington is in an apocalyptic conflict with Beijing. Last week Pompeo delivered a major speech in which he argued that China is an existential threat to the “free world,” declaring, “If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party.” Pompeo’s top adviser on China, Miles Yu, believes that the United States and China are headed for “unavoidable confrontation.” These ultrahawks believe that protecting the United States from being taken over by the Chinese Communist Party requires going on the offense against China as quickly as possible. They are doing everything they can to push the US-China relationship past the point of no return, to poison it so deeply that Biden and the Democrats will not be able to undo the damage and will have no choice but to embrace a spiraling conflict, even if they win in November.
The new Democratic Party platform, to its credit, does disavow some key points in Trump’s anti-China strategy, including his “reckless trade war with China” and the “trap of a new Cold War.” It avoids repeating the most inflammatory rhetoric of the right, such as scapegoating China for the pandemic, and notes that “the China challenge is not primarily a military one.” It affirms the need for “cooperation on issues of mutual interest like climate change and nonproliferation.” (Oddly, though, the need for cooperation to beat the pandemic is not mentioned.)
Despite these bright spots, the platform reaffirms a framework of competition and rivalry and prioritizes this over building new forms of cooperation. Preserving this hostile framework renders the Democrats helpless to divert the US-China relationship from its current course toward conflict and catastrophe.
The platform retains a commitment to maintaining US military hegemony in the South China Sea, calling China’s military buildup there “aggression” and “intimidation” that must be resisted. The US Navy’s increased presence in the region is, of course, not criticized as any form of “aggression,” although this is in China’s backyard and 5,000 miles away from the nearest US state, Hawaii. Committing the Democrats to a strategy of military containment in this way feeds into China’s entirely credible fear that it is at risk of being strangled by the US military in its own backyard, and risks open military conflict. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann More From Tobita Chow The Forgotten Workers of Tiananmen Square June 4, 2020 This Lunar New Year, Demand Solidarity January 24, 2020
The Democrats also maintain the idea that China is an economic threat to the United States and reaffirm the so-called “structural” economic issues that are at the heart of the current trade war, including “illegal subsidies and theft of intellectual property,” claiming that Trump has actually been too soft on protecting intellectual property rights. But intellectual property rights are primarily a form of corporate power. The intellectual property system inflates drug prices so that pharmaceutical companies can profit, is currently undermining international collaboration to develop treatments and a vaccine, and interferes with the distribution of the clean energy technology that is necessary to beat climate change. The current system should be weakened and replaced, not strengthened.
As for the accusation of “illegal subsidies,” this is an attack on China’s very successful use of economic planning. The United States should itself engage in more economic planning—both the pandemic and climate change necessitate this—rather than demanding that China end its use of economic planning. Economic planning is at the heart of China’s economic growth strategy and therefore nonnegotiable. For Democrats to maintain this demand merely ensures a continuation of economic conflict, which inevitably feeds military tensions as well. Current Issue View our current issue
The platform also commits a Democratic administration to taking measures against China over the abuses of democratic and human rights in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang. It is important that the Democratic Party take a stand on these issues, and it is strategically damaging to let the Republicans position themselves as the champions of human rights in China, as has largely been the case to date. However, US government pressure is ineffective when the relationship is already so fundamentally hostile that Chinese elites expect that US aggression will continue no matter what they do about rights issues. As former Obama adviser Ryan Hass has written about the failure of US pressure to stop China’s crackdown on freedoms in Hong Kong, “The U.S. posture of unswerving hostility toward China…lowered the risk that any action on Hong Kong could worsen U.S.-China ties, since they already had become adversarial.” In the case of Hong Kong, economic sanctions are actually accelerating the assimilation of Hong Kong into mainland China. As Wilfred Chan writes, current strategy follows a “suicidal logic.” In addition, the US government’s clear hypocrisy when it comes to questions of Islamophobia, mass incarceration, and crackdowns on protesters makes it easy for Chinese elites to delegitimize pressure from the US over human rights.
We should be realistic and acknowledge that the ability of the US government to influence the domestic affairs of a country as powerful as China is limited. That said, to increase the effectiveness of pressure on China over rights issues, a Democratic government must chart an alternative path beyond the US-China conflict, while also addressing our own failure to be consistent on human rights protections. Otherwise, the impact is likely to be inflammatory, without improving protections for anyone’s rights.
Although the platform commits the Democrats to confront China in all these ways, it also seems to imagine that we can maintain robust cooperation to meet global challenges like climate change at the same time. Its authors may recall that the US and USSR were able to collaborate over important issues, such as smallpox and arms control, despite being locked in the Cold War. As some have argued, if that was possible, the two countries similarly ought to be able to cooperate around shared challenges such as the pandemic and climate change, even as the US-China rivalry intensifies. But the Cold War is a false analogy.
The height of the Cold War coincided with strong economic growth in both the US and USSR, at a time when each maintained economies that were largely independent of each other. This allowed both countries to become more prosperous despite their differences, which in turn facilitated cooperation around shared challenges. The current US-China conflict, in contrast, is driven by growing dysfunctions in the global neoliberal system. This dynamic makes the relative stability of the Cold War unattainable.
The global economy never truly recovered from the 2008 financial crisis, and at a global level, economic growth has been weak. This has led to zero-sum competition over shrinking opportunities for growth. Such competition is particularly fierce between the United States and China—which, for example, are both vying for control over the most profitable industries in the tech sector. This zero-sum competition has fed a growth in nationalism in the United States, China, and beyond, and that nationalism has led to confrontational policies that only make things worse. The US-China trade war, for example, threatened to push the entire global economy into recession even before the pandemic, further weakening growth, and further feeding a spirit of zero-sum competition. We are thus at risk of falling into a feedback loop in which escalating nationalism drives conflict, which worsens the dysfunctions of the global system, intensifying competitive pressures and feeding further nationalist conflict.
These underlying trends in the global system are biased towards escalation and are more akin to the lead up to World War II than to the Cold War. Those who imagine that US-China cooperation can coexist with a relatively stable, low-conflict US-China rivalry misunderstand this.
The only way out is to radically transform the global system, a project that will require greater cooperation, not competition, between Washington and Beijing. It is up to the left to develop this alternative, to build power around it both at the grassroots level and in partnership with progressive leaders in the Democratic Party. Without such transformation, even if Biden and the Democratic Party win in November, they will prove incapable of overcoming the Republicans’ efforts to lock the United States and China into conflict, creating a more dangerous and more deeply divided world.


thenation--2020-07-31--The Spectre of Socialism Haunts Mike Pence

Vice President Mike Pence made another desperate campaign swing through the battleground state of Wisconsin in July , hoping to revive the flagging fortunes of the Republican Party that he and President Trump have turned into a vehicle for racism , xenophobia , economic inequality , and a rejection of science that currently endangers all Americans .
In an attempt to reconnect with the better angels of Republicanism , Pence traveled to the college town of Ripon , where the party was founded in 1854 .
There , with his now-familiar aplomb , the vice president offered a false narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contemporary reality but American history .
“ The American people have a choice to make .
And the choice has never been clearer and the stakes have never been higher , ” announced the vice president in what was billed as a major address on July 17 .
“ I came here to the city of Ripon , Wisconsin , where the Republican Party was born , to describe that choice.
” Trump Can ’ t Delay the Election—So He ’ s Trying to Make It a Chaotic Mess Without Medicare for All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boldest Democratic Platform in American History ’ Call Trump ’ s Tactics What They Are : Fascist Speaking in a time of mass unemployment , layoffs , scorching income inequality , and painful losses of incomes and livelihoods for working farmers and small-business owners , Pence declared , “ Our economic recovery is on the ballot , but also are things far more fundamental and foundational to our country.
” If the “ economic recovery ” as it presently stands were the only thing on the ballot , Trump and Pence would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain why the vice president chose to emphasize what he referred to as his “ far more fundamental and foundational ” concerns .
Unfortunately for Pence , he got tripped up by ignorance of his own party ’ s history .
“ Like those first Republicans , ” he chirped , “ we stand at a crossroads of freedom .
Before us are two paths : one based on the dignity of every individual , and the other on the growing control of the state .
Our road leads to greater freedom and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and decline.
” Pence was trying to suggest that “ Joe Biden would set America on a path of socialism and decline ” —which , if you know anything about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee ’ s record , is absurd .
Biden beat this year ’ s democratic socialist prospect , Bernie Sanders , for the nomination .
It ’ s true that the former vice president and the senator from Vermont have found some common ground , but Pence ’ s attempt to portray Biden as a political pushover who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was an epic rewrite of reality .
Even more epic was the rewrite of history that the vice president attempted when he suggested that he and Trump are “ like those first Republicans.
” The first Republicans were radicals , who sought to upend the politics of the country at a time when the existing parties were capitulating to the demands of Southern slaveholders and their political patrons .
If you visit the Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon , which is emblazoned with the words “ Birthplace of the Republican Party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story of how Alvan Earle Bovay “ called a meeting of 53 voters…to form a new party.
” The historical record tells us that the meeting was organized “ to protest the Senate ’ s passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act , which permitted the extension of slavery beyond the limits of the Missouri Compromise .
The protest resulted in the formation of a new , albeit local party , drawn from the ranks of disgruntled Whigs , Free Soilers , and Democrats.
” Among those initial petitioners were a number of people like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ripon area as “ a member of the Wisconsin Phalanx.
” And Hiram S. Town , who “ joined the Wisconsin Phalanx in 1846.
” And Robert Mason , who is recalled for “ joining the Wisconsin Phalanx.
” And William Dunham , “ one of the incorporators of the Wisconsin Phalanx , ” who served as a moderator of the first of the meetings that gave rise to the Republican Party .
What was the Wisconsin Phalanx ?
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation , an independent federal agency that advises the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , describes it as “ an experimental socialist community ” that was established on the edge of what is now Ripon in the community of Ceresco .
It was founded by followers of Charles Fourier , the French philosopher who was one of the founders of utopian socialism .
Fourier ’ s ideas were popularized in the United States by Horace Greeley ’ s New York Tribune , which for a number of years employed Karl Marx as its European correspondent .
The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a friend and associate of Greeley , had moved to Ripon a few years before he called the 1854 meeting .
A veteran organizer who had led militant movements for land reform—with the slogan “ Vote Yourself a Farm ” —Bovay had long advocated the formation of an independent political movement with the purpose of gaining control of legislatures and the Congress in order to enact radical reforms .
At Bovay ’ s urging , Greeley popularized the new party , which drew in partisans from many political camps who were united in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among the first Republicans were many allies and associates of socialist causes , including Joseph Weydemeyer , a former Prussian Army officer who would continue to correspond with Marx as he rose through the ranks as a military officer during the Civil War .
Decades after the founding of the new party , the great trade unionist and Socialist Party leader Eugene Victor Debs would reflect on this history in his speeches .
Though he dismissed both major parties of the early 20th century as “ wings of the same bird of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the Republican Party was once red.
” There may have been a measure of hyperbole in that remark .
But the fact is that the Republican Party that was founded in Ripon included plenty of people whose familiarity with radical ideas would alarm Mike Pence .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Vice President Mike Pence made another desperate campaign swing through the battleground state of Wisconsin in July, hoping to revive the flagging fortunes of the Republican Party that he and President Trump have turned into a vehicle for racism, xenophobia, economic inequality, and a rejection of science that currently endangers all Americans.
In an attempt to reconnect with the better angels of Republicanism, Pence traveled to the college town of Ripon, where the party was founded in 1854.
There, with his now-familiar aplomb, the vice president offered a false narrative that was at odds with not just contemporary reality but American history.
“The American people have a choice to make. And the choice has never been clearer and the stakes have never been higher,” announced the vice president in what was billed as a major address on July 17. “I came here to the city of Ripon, Wisconsin, where the Republican Party was born, to describe that choice.” More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
Speaking in a time of mass unemployment, layoffs, scorching income inequality, and painful losses of incomes and livelihoods for working farmers and small-business owners, Pence declared, “Our economic recovery is on the ballot, but also are things far more fundamental and foundational to our country.”
If the “economic recovery” as it presently stands were the only thing on the ballot, Trump and Pence would be headed for overwhelming defeat.
That may explain why the vice president chose to emphasize what he referred to as his “far more fundamental and foundational” concerns.
Unfortunately for Pence, he got tripped up by ignorance of his own party’s history.
“Like those first Republicans,” he chirped, “we stand at a crossroads of freedom. Before us are two paths: one based on the dignity of every individual, and the other on the growing control of the state. Our road leads to greater freedom and opportunity. Their road leads to socialism and decline.”
Pence was trying to suggest that “Joe Biden would set America on a path of socialism and decline”—which, if you know anything about the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s record, is absurd. Biden beat this year’s democratic socialist prospect, Bernie Sanders, for the nomination. It’s true that the former vice president and the senator from Vermont have found some common ground, but Pence’s attempt to portray Biden as a political pushover who has “capitulated to the radical left-wing mob” was an epic rewrite of reality. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Even more epic was the rewrite of history that the vice president attempted when he suggested that he and Trump are “like those first Republicans.”
The first Republicans were radicals, who sought to upend the politics of the country at a time when the existing parties were capitulating to the demands of Southern slaveholders and their political patrons. Current Issue View our current issue
If you visit the Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, which is emblazoned with the words “Birthplace of the Republican Party,” you will be introduced to the story of how Alvan Earle Bovay “called a meeting of 53 voters…to form a new party.” The historical record tells us that the meeting was organized “to protest the Senate’s passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which permitted the extension of slavery beyond the limits of the Missouri Compromise. The protest resulted in the formation of a new, albeit local party, drawn from the ranks of disgruntled Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats.”
Among those initial petitioners were a number of people like Jacob Woodruff, who moved to the Ripon area as “a member of the Wisconsin Phalanx.” And Hiram S. Town, who “joined the Wisconsin Phalanx in 1846.” And Robert Mason, who is recalled for “joining the Wisconsin Phalanx.” And William Dunham, “one of the incorporators of the Wisconsin Phalanx,” who served as a moderator of the first of the meetings that gave rise to the Republican Party.
What was the Wisconsin Phalanx? The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency that advises the president and Congress on national historic preservation policy, describes it as “an experimental socialist community” that was established on the edge of what is now Ripon in the community of Ceresco. It was founded by followers of Charles Fourier, the French philosopher who was one of the founders of utopian socialism. Fourier’s ideas were popularized in the United States by Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune, which for a number of years employed Karl Marx as its European correspondent. Related Article The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party Is a Fight for the Future John Nichols
Bovay, a friend and associate of Greeley, had moved to Ripon a few years before he called the 1854 meeting. A veteran organizer who had led militant movements for land reform—with the slogan “Vote Yourself a Farm”—Bovay had long advocated the formation of an independent political movement with the purpose of gaining control of legislatures and the Congress in order to enact radical reforms.
At Bovay’s urging, Greeley popularized the new party, which drew in partisans from many political camps who were united in their opposition to the spread of slavery. Among the first Republicans were many allies and associates of socialist causes, including Joseph Weydemeyer, a former Prussian Army officer who would continue to correspond with Marx as he rose through the ranks as a military officer during the Civil War.
Decades after the founding of the new party, the great trade unionist and Socialist Party leader Eugene Victor Debs would reflect on this history in his speeches. Though he dismissed both major parties of the early 20th century as “wings of the same bird of prey,” Debs allowed as how “the Republican Party was once red.”
There may have been a measure of hyperbole in that remark. But the fact is that the Republican Party that was founded in Ripon included plenty of people whose familiarity with radical ideas would alarm Mike Pence.


thenation--2020-07-31--Congress Refuses to Kick the Military Off of Twitch

Congress debated on Thursday whether to end the US military ’ s use of e-sports teams to recruit teenagers , following a Nation report published two weeks prior about the practice .
Shortly after the article ’ s publication , Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced an amendment to the year ’ s defense spending bill that would have barred the use of funds on military recruiting efforts “ by any of the Armed Forces for [ the Amazon-owned livestreaming platform Twitch ] or esports activities.
” “ I believe that we should act with reservation and caution first rather than entering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to undo damage that could potentially be done , ” Ocasio-Cortez said while speaking in support of the measure on Thursday afternoon .
“ That ’ s why I believe we should , again , restrain and restrict ourselves from explicit recruitment tactics , not others , but recruitment , specifically , on platforms that children are using to play games like Animal Crossing—from Animal Crossing to Call of Duty.
” Originally , congressional staffers close to the issue expected the amendment to be grouped with several other noncontroversial amendments , voted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote .
Instead , to the surprise of many staffers and advocates following the amendment ’ s progress , it was singled out and voted on separately .
The amendment ultimately failed to get enough support , after 103 Democrats joined with 188 Republicans to vote against it .
The final tally was 126-292 .
No Republicans voted in favor of it .
“ Imagine trying to explain to your colleagues who are members of Congress what Twitch is , ” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in a thread while the vote was happening .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .
It ’ s totally fine if you don ’ t know what Twitch is .
But tech literacy is becoming [ a ] growing need in Congress so we can legislate to protect people ’ s privacy , etc .
When our legislative bodies aren ’ t sufficiently responsive to tech , then that means we don ’ t have the tools required to protect people.
” The US Military Is Using Online Gaming to Recruit Teens Her comments on colleagues ’ misunderstanding of the issue are perfectly encapsulated by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave to the New York Post .
“ This is incredibly insulting as it perpetuates the limousine liberal trope that soldiers are idiots who only get duped into enlisting , ” Rose , an Army veteran , told the Murdoch tabloid about the amendment designed to keep military recruiters away from minors online .
But even without passage of Ocasio-Cortez ’ s amendment , the military ’ s online recruitment efforts have been curtailed .
A day after our article ’ s publication , Twitch told the Army that it must immediately stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After the Army booted me from its Twitch channel for mentioning US war crimes , First Amendment lawyers also started speaking out , arguing that banning me constituted a violation of free speech rights .
The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University even sent a letter to the Army and Navy demanding an end to speech prohibitions in military Twitch channels .
“ The Army and Navy esports teams ’ banning of users based on their speech about war crimes is unconstitutional .
When the government intentionally opens a space to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it has created a ‘ public forum ’ under the First Amendment , and it can not constitutionally bar speakers from that forum based on viewpoint , ” the letter reads .
Under a barrage of negative press , the Army quietly retreated from Twitch , and opted out of future competitions .
The Army e-sports team ’ s social media accounts went dark .
There is “ no official time frame for a return ” to Twitch , according to one report , but industry insiders told me they suspect this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Navy e-sports team , in contrast , hasn ’ t stopped .
Its recruiters admitted that they block unfavorable terms—like “ Eddie Gallagher , ” a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq .
One recruiter lied to viewers , saying military e-sports channels were not a recruiting tool .
“ We ’ re here to show that we like video games too .
Like , literally , we ’ re not here to recruit .
That is not the point of this , ” Machinist ’ s mate Andrew “ Saltysn1pe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A few days later , Vice ’ s Matthew Gault discovered and published the Navy Recruiting Command Twitch Guide for Streamers .
Then , after all this , the progressive firebrand from New York ’ s 14th district introduced the amendment .
“ It ’ s incredibly irresponsible for the Army and the Navy to be recruiting impressionable young people and children via live streaming platforms .
War is not a game , and the Marine [ Corps ] ’ s decision not to engage in this recruiting tool should be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the military to cease this practice entirely , ” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement to The Nation .
In support of the legislation , Representative Ilhan Omar said in a statement : Anti-war groups echoed the Minnesota representative ’ s sentiments .
“ Recruitment via Twitch and other video game platforms should be understood as a continuation of a long line of manipulative tactics the U.S. Military uses to glamorize and gamify violence and recruit young people , ” Carley Towne , a national organizer with Code Pink , said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would block federal funds from being used on military recruiting in middle and high schools .
“ In many public high schools where military recruiters have a daily presence , there is not even a counselor , ” she told The New York Times .
“ As a result , the military stops feeling like a ‘ choice ’ and starts feeling like the only option for many young , low-income Americans.
” This amendment didn ’ t make it out of committee , but does underscore her as well as other progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex head-on .
“ Military recruitment at its core is a predatory industry .
If it ’ s online on Twitch or at a cafeteria in a public school , recruiters are there to generate ‘ leads ’ of new young people to fill the ranks .
These recruiters posing as fellow gamers and streamers are part of a long history of the military trying to use sports to find new bodies to fill uniforms , ” said Tory Smith , a national organizer with War Resisters League .
Despite the setback on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gearing up for a sustained fight .
If the military has moved into the world of e-sports , then so has the anti-war left .
Ocasio-Cortez ’ s introduction of the amendment and the support of colleagues and activists demonstrates that a bold and concerted effort to prevent misleading recruitment efforts has begun .
Erik Sperling , the executive director of Just Foreign Policy , told me , “ Representative Ocasio-Cortez ’ s amendment should be just the first step in an ongoing campaign to address long-standing issues in military recruiting such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inadequate disclosures about what benefits will be available , and frank answers about what service is like in a time of global war .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Congress debated on Thursday whether to end the US military’s use of e-sports teams to recruit teenagers, following a Nation report published two weeks prior about the practice. Shortly after the article’s publication, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced an amendment to the year’s defense spending bill that would have barred the use of funds on military recruiting efforts “by any of the Armed Forces for [the Amazon-owned livestreaming platform Twitch] or esports activities.”
“I believe that we should act with reservation and caution first rather than entering with both feet in and then trying to undo damage that could potentially be done,” Ocasio-Cortez said while speaking in support of the measure on Thursday afternoon. “That’s why I believe we should, again, restrain and restrict ourselves from explicit recruitment tactics, not others, but recruitment, specifically, on platforms that children are using to play games like Animal Crossing—from Animal Crossing to Call of Duty.”
Originally, congressional staffers close to the issue expected the amendment to be grouped with several other noncontroversial amendments, voted on en bloc, and passed via voice vote. Instead, to the surprise of many staffers and advocates following the amendment’s progress, it was singled out and voted on separately. The amendment ultimately failed to get enough support, after 103 Democrats joined with 188 Republicans to vote against it. The final tally was 126-292. No Republicans voted in favor of it.
“Imagine trying to explain to your colleagues who are members of Congress what Twitch is,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in a thread while the vote was happening. “Congress is voting on legislation regarding Twitch today. It’s totally fine if you don’t know what Twitch is. But tech literacy is becoming [a] growing need in Congress so we can legislate to protect people’s privacy, etc. When our legislative bodies aren’t sufficiently responsive to tech, then that means we don’t have the tools required to protect people.” Military Recruitment The US Military Is Using Online Gaming to Recruit Teens Jordan Uhl
Her comments on colleagues’ misunderstanding of the issue are perfectly encapsulated by a statement Representative Max Rose of New York gave to the New York Post.
“This is incredibly insulting as it perpetuates the limousine liberal trope that soldiers are idiots who only get duped into enlisting,” Rose, an Army veteran, told the Murdoch tabloid about the amendment designed to keep military recruiters away from minors online.
But even without passage of Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment, the military’s online recruitment efforts have been curtailed. A day after our article’s publication, Twitch told the Army that it must immediately stop using deceptive giveaways to collect personal information. After the Army booted me from its Twitch channel for mentioning US war crimes, First Amendment lawyers also started speaking out, arguing that banning me constituted a violation of free speech rights. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University even sent a letter to the Army and Navy demanding an end to speech prohibitions in military Twitch channels. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
“The Army and Navy esports teams’ banning of users based on their speech about war crimes is unconstitutional. When the government intentionally opens a space to the public at large for expressive activity, it has created a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, and it cannot constitutionally bar speakers from that forum based on viewpoint,” the letter reads.
Under a barrage of negative press, the Army quietly retreated from Twitch, and opted out of future competitions. The Army e-sports team’s social media accounts went dark. There is “no official time frame for a return” to Twitch, according to one report, but industry insiders told me they suspect this will last through spring 2021.
The Navy e-sports team, in contrast, hasn’t stopped. Its recruiters admitted that they block unfavorable terms—like “Eddie Gallagher,” a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq. One recruiter lied to viewers, saying military e-sports channels were not a recruiting tool.
“We’re here to show that we like video games too. Like, literally, we’re not here to recruit. That is not the point of this,” Machinist’s mate Andrew “Saltysn1pe” Crosswhite said during a recent stream. A few days later, Vice’s Matthew Gault discovered and published the Navy Recruiting Command Twitch Guide for Streamers.
Then, after all this, the progressive firebrand from New York’s 14th district introduced the amendment.
“It’s incredibly irresponsible for the Army and the Navy to be recruiting impressionable young people and children via live streaming platforms. War is not a game, and the Marine [Corps]’s decision not to engage in this recruiting tool should be a clear signal to the other branches of the military to cease this practice entirely,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement to The Nation.
In support of the legislation, Representative Ilhan Omar said in a statement:
War is not a game. Video games should not be recruitment tools for the military. And it is particularly concerning that users were blocked from platforms by the US military for asking about war crimes, raising serious first amendment concerns. I am proud to work with my colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on this amendment.
Anti-war groups echoed the Minnesota representative’s sentiments. “Recruitment via Twitch and other video game platforms should be understood as a continuation of a long line of manipulative tactics the U.S. Military uses to glamorize and gamify violence and recruit young people,” Carley Towne, a national organizer with Code Pink, said in a statement.
Ocasio-Cortez also introduced another amendment that would block federal funds from being used on military recruiting in middle and high schools.
“In many public high schools where military recruiters have a daily presence, there is not even a counselor,” she told The New York Times. “As a result, the military stops feeling like a ‘choice’ and starts feeling like the only option for many young, low-income Americans.”
This amendment didn’t make it out of committee, but does underscore her as well as other progressive lawmakers’ commitment to tackling the military-industrial complex head-on.
“Military recruitment at its core is a predatory industry. If it’s online on Twitch or at a cafeteria in a public school, recruiters are there to generate ‘leads’ of new young people to fill the ranks. These recruiters posing as fellow gamers and streamers are part of a long history of the military trying to use sports to find new bodies to fill uniforms,” said Tory Smith, a national organizer with War Resisters League.
Despite the setback on the Twitch amendment, anti-war groups are gearing up for a sustained fight. If the military has moved into the world of e-sports, then so has the anti-war left. Ocasio-Cortez’s introduction of the amendment and the support of colleagues and activists demonstrates that a bold and concerted effort to prevent misleading recruitment efforts has begun.
Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, told me, “Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s amendment should be just the first step in an ongoing campaign to address long-standing issues in military recruiting such as targeting children in disproportionately working-class schools, and inadequate disclosures about what benefits will be available, and frank answers about what service is like in a time of global war.”


thenation--2020-07-31--The NYPD Took a Step Toward Fascism When It Kidnapped Nikki Stone

On July 28 , a couple of hundred protesters in Manhattan watched helplessly as 18-year-old trans woman Nikki Stone was snatched off the street by plainclothes officers , shoved into an unmarked van , and taken who knows where .
Protesters who attempted to intervene were met with pepper spray to the face .
Shortly after , video of the kidnapping was posted on Twitter for the world to see .
In the months since the murder of George Floyd sparked nationwide protests against systemic racism and unjust policing practices , we ’ ve witnessed in person and on video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and brutalize protesters with impunity , making it ever more clear that we ’ re on the road away from democracy and getting closer to fascism .
Just days before , we watched federal officers in Portland , Ore. , snatch a protester in similar fashion .
So , naturally , when Stone was taken , messages of fear and confusion proliferated quickly online .
Were these federal officers ?
NYPD ?
Without clear markings , were these officers at all ?
An NYPD social media account came forward to take credit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that officers were assaulted with rocks and bottles .
To those outside New York City ’ s border , and some within , this was new , novel , and terrifying .
To those of us who have fought police terror in the city , it ’ s the same NYPD we ’ ve always known .
The division responsible for Stone ’ s kidnapping is known as the “ warrant squad.
” The name makes it sound like the officers ride around town like the A-Team , taking down the toughest criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right reasons .
Quite the opposite .
The warrant squad marshals the full weight of the department ’ s multibillion-dollar budget to terrorize the city ’ s most vulnerable communities .
A 2015 investigative report by John Surico for Vice highlighted the warrant squad ’ s repeated raids of homeless shelters—with a majority of arrests coming for nonviolent , minor offenses .
“ When I asked homeless people why this is happening , most said it was to meet quotas—the statistics-based policing that critics ( and even some police officers ) say is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeless arrests can act as fodder for the stats , ” Surico wrote .
“ This , they argued , may explain why the raids fluctuate : Some months have low numbers , perhaps meaning the cops don ’ t need as many arrests ; when the raids go up , the cops are presumably in need of some juice.
” As a former public defender , I ’ ve witnessed this police work masquerading as public safety up close .
In the early years of my career , parades of warrant squad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rattle of chain gang shackles filling the room .
Some were partially clothed , others missing shoes .
The infractions that justified their appearing in this dehumanizing state were almost always dismissed .
One by one , they were unshackled and sent on their way—the state acting like nothing had ever happened .
Until the next raid .
Unlike many of the warrant squad ’ s incursions over the years , what happened to Stone on Tuesday night was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people via cell phone cameras and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members joined the righteous torrent of outrage , but many chose to look good rather than to do good when the time arrived to hold police accountable .
Last month , a multiracial coalition of New Yorkers did their part in working to disempower an out-of-control police force by advocating a $ 1 billion divestment from NYPD and an investment in social services .
Those efforts were met with political chicanery when the City Council passed a budget that failed to cut the police budget in any meaningful way .
The same legislators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outrage and demand answers about Stone ’ s arrest sat down when their time came not just to demand accountability but to make real and lasting change .
What happened to Stone should be a wake-up call to anyone who thought police violence would confine itself to Black , brown , and poor communities .
That she was snatched from a dense throng of protesters shows the sophistication of NYPD surveillance .
This was an intentional act meant to send a message to protesters : Speak out , and you too can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , we ’ d be condemning the regime responsible , as we frequently do when foreign regimes that aren ’ t allies use their police forces to brutally suppress dissenting speech .
But it is easy to call out oppression beyond our borders , harder to do so when our government is waging violence and oppression against our own people .
Difficulty can not be a deterrent .
History shows what happens when we fail to uproot oppression .
The prophetic prose of Martin Niemöller ’ s “ First They Came… ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First they came for the Communists / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a Communist… ” What started in the dark of night at homeless shelters is now in the streets in broad daylight .
We are the last to speak for us .
If you have not been already , it ’ s time to start shouting .

This article appears in the August 24/31, 2020 issue.
On July 28, a couple of hundred protesters in Manhattan watched helplessly as 18-year-old trans woman Nikki Stone was snatched off the street by plainclothes officers, shoved into an unmarked van, and taken who knows where.
Protesters were met with pepper spray to the face. Shortly after, video of the kidnapping was posted on Twitter for the world to see.
Stone’s “crime” that warranted a literal kidnapping? Allegedly damaging police cameras with spray paint.
In the months since the murder of George Floyd sparked nationwide protests against systemic racism and unjust policing practices, we’ve witnessed in person and on video federal and local law enforcement officials terrorize and brutalize protesters with impunity, making it ever more clear that we’re on the road away from democracy and getting closer to fascism. Just days before, we watched federal officers in Portland, Ore., snatch protesters in similar fashion. So, naturally, when Stone was taken, messages of fear and confusion proliferated quickly online. Were these federal officers? NYPD? Without clear markings, were these officers at all? An NYPD social media account came forward to take credit for the kidnapping, while also falsely claiming that officers were assaulted with rocks and bottles.
To those outside New York City’s border, and some within, this was new, novel, and terrifying. To those of us who have fought police terror in the city, it’s the same NYPD we’ve always known.
The division responsible for Stone’s kidnapping is known as the “warrant squad.” The name makes it sound like the officers ride around town like the A-Team, taking down the toughest criminals with unorthodox tactics, but for the right reasons. Quite the opposite. The warrant squad marshals the full weight of the department’s multibillion-dollar budget to terrorize the city’s most vulnerable communities.
A 2015 investigative report by John Surico for Vice highlighted the warrant squad’s repeated raids of homeless shelters—with a majority of arrests coming for nonviolent, minor offenses. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
“When I asked homeless people why this is happening, most said it was to meet quotas—the statistics-based policing that critics (and even some police officers) say is encouraged by One Police Plaza—and that the homeless arrests can act as fodder for the stats,” Surico wrote. “This, they argued, may explain why the raids fluctuate: Some months have low numbers, perhaps meaning the cops don’t need as many arrests; when the raids go up, the cops are presumably in need of some juice.”
As a former public defender, I’ve witnessed this police work masquerading as public safety up close. In the early years of my career, parades of warrant squad detainees were regularly marched into court, the rattle of chain gang shackles filling the room. Some were partially clothed, others missing shoes. The infractions that justified their appearing in this dehumanizing state were almost always dismissed. One by one, they were unshackled and sent on their way—the state acting like nothing had ever happened. Until the next raid.
Unlike many of the warrant squad’s incursions over the years, what happened to Stone on Tuesday night was witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people via cell phone cameras and social media. Several New York City Council members joined the righteous torrent of outrage, but many chose to look good rather than to do good when the time arrived to hold police accountable.
Last month, a multiracial coalition of New Yorkers did their part in working to disempower an out-of-control police force by advocating a $1 billion divestment from NYPD and an investment in social services. Those efforts were met with political chicanery when the City Council passed a budget that failed to cut the police budget in any meaningful way. The same legislators who are standing up now to express outrage and demand answers about Stone’s arrest sat down when their time came not just to demand accountability but to make real and lasting change.
What happened to Stone should be a wake-up call to anyone who thought police violence would confine itself to Black, brown, and poor communities. That she was snatched from a dense throng of protesters shows the sophistication of NYPD surveillance. This was an intentional act meant to send a message to protesters: Speak out, and you too can be disappeared. If this happened in another country, we’d be condemning the regime responsible, as we frequently do when foreign regimes that aren’t allies use their police forces to brutally suppress dissenting speech.
But it is easy to call out oppression beyond our borders, harder to do so when our government is waging violence and oppression against our own people. Difficulty cannot be a deterrent. History shows what happens when we fail to uproot oppression. The prophetic prose of Martin Niemöller’s “First They Came…” rings loudly in my head. “First they came for the Communists / And I did not speak out / Because I was not a Communist…” What started in the dark of night at homeless shelters is now in the streets in broad daylight. We are the last to speak for us. If you have not been already, it’s time to start shouting.


thenation--2020-08-03--The Philosophical Leftovers of Gilles Deleuze

“ Academics ’ lives are seldom interesting , ” Gilles Deleuze told Magazine Littéraire in 1988 .
The life of the mind is not without some amusement : Professors “ travel , of course , ” the French philosopher continued , “ but they travel by hot air , by taking part in things like conferences and discussions , by talking , endlessly talking.
” Deleuze was more reclusive than many in the cohort referred to , primarily in Anglo-American circles , as “ French theory , ” and in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary—25 books published during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by diverse scholarly blocs—he declined to call himself an intellectual , sincerely or not .
Intellectuals , he believed , “ have views on everything , ” but he had “ no stock of views to draw on.
” “ What I know , ” he added , “ I know only from something I ’ m actually working on , and if I come back to something a few years later , I have to learn everything all over again.
” By Gilles Deleuze ; Edited by David Lapoujade ; Translated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , at the age of 70 , when the respiratory problems that had plagued him since his youth made this work too much to endure .
What Is Philosophy ?
, his final collaboration with the psychiatrist Félix Guattari , was published in English in 1994 , the year before he died , and posited an answer to its titular question : “ Philosophy is the art of forming , inventing , and fabricating concepts.
” Like painting , architecture , music , or cinema , as he wrote in his two-volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophy lays “ claim to the new materials and means that the future makes possible.
” Deleuze thus summarized a career spent prognosticating the potentials immanent in the subjects he studied : the history of philosophy from Spinoza and Leibniz through Hume , Kant , Nietzsche , Bergson , and his friend Michel Foucault ; what he and Guattari called the “ minor ” literatures of Kafka , Proust , Sacher-Masoch , Lewis Carroll , William S. Burroughs , and others ; the theater of Beckett and Artaud , the paintings of Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Olivier Messiaen , and Pierre Boulez .
He described this methodology as “ buggery ” or “ immaculate conception ” : “ I saw myself as taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offspring , yet monstrous.
” He wasn ’ t kidding .
As the Explain Deleuze meme satirically attests , the author ’ s writing is known to be painfully difficult , even impenetrable ; this is the foremost reason that commentaries on his work now comprise “ Deleuze studies , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to this community alone , perhaps , that the publication of Letters and Other Texts is a highly anticipated release : the third and presumably final volume of outtakes edited by David Lapoujade and published by Semiotext ( e ) , more than a decade after Desert Islands and Other Texts , 1953–1974 and Two Regimes of Madness , 1975–1995 .
While these earlier editions were among the first to make available English translations of shorter texts that many would consider key to understanding Deleuze ’ s thought—such as “ Intellectuals and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deleuze and Foucault collected in Desert Islands—the pieces compiled in Letters are much less canonical ; for that reason , they fascinate as much as they unnerve , leaving the door of the vault open behind them in suggestion that there isn ’ t much left to find .
By collecting these remnants , Letters secures Deleuze ’ s passage into the realm of a historical figure—like his forebears , an object of study—once and for all , a quarter-century after his death .
What the book lacks in the biographical intrigue readers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a scholastic gravitas befitting its subject , further clarifying the development of Deleuze ’ s corpus if not the intimacies of his personal life .
Deleuze was born in Paris in 1925 to conservative , middle-class parents and grew up in the shadow of his older brother , Georges , who joined the Resistance during the Nazi occupation , for which he was arrested and died en route to a concentration camp .
Gilles discovered philosophy in 1943 and the following year enrolled at the Sorbonne , having already established himself in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-wing Catholic medievalist , and Marcel Moré , a Jules Verne scholar .
These gatherings were frequented by such luminaries as Jean-Paul Sartre , Georges Bataille , Pierre Klossowski , Alexandre Kojève , Jean Hyppolite , and Maurice de Gandillac .
The group was responsible for Germanizing the trajectory of French philosophy , shifting the focal point toward Hegel , Marx , Nietzsche , Freud , and Heidegger , and facilitating the transition from the phenomenology of Bergson and Merleau-Ponty to the structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss , Jacques Lacan , Roland Barthes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Deleuze , Foucault , and Jacques Derrida ( all students of Hyppolite and Gandillac ) would affirm and then succeed .
Deleuze ’ s first publications , included in Letters , ape the style of Sartre most proudly , at times embarrassingly so .
The first , “ Description of Women , ” published in the journal Poésie when Deleuze was 20 , presages the concept of “ becoming-woman ” that he would develop , with Guattari , in A Thousand Plateaus , to the bemusement of some feminists .
And not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The body of the woman is the overwhelming triumph of flesh , ” the young Deleuze virginally argues .
“ The woman is a concrete universal ; she is a world , not an externalized world , but under the world , the warm interiority of the world , a compressed internalized world .
Whence the prodigious sexual success of women : possessing a woman is possessing the world.
” As Lapoujade notes in the foreword , Deleuze later denounced this juvenilia , “ although their publication can no longer be avoided , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circulated without authorization , and sometimes in a form that contained errors.
” Fanny Deleuze , the philosopher ’ s widow , wrote to Semiotext ( e ) founder Sylvère Lotringer in advance of Desert Islands ’ appearance that her husband left “ very specific indications concerning posthumous publications , ” but the family ’ s authorization of Letters seems resigned to the fact that Deleuzians are something like the Deadheads of the theory world : techno-savvy , organized , and obsessively invested in even the scrappiest bootlegs .
This is , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guattari ’ s concepts— “ rhizome ” among them—were fundamental to early theorizations of the Internet and digital culture , not to mention the thought of former colleagues Alain Badiou and Antonio Negri ( whose own co-author , Michael Hardt , was a student of Deleuze ) and post-Marxist theorists of science , gender , media , and race from Slavoj Žižek and Jacques Rancière to Isabelle Stengers , Elizabeth Grosz , Fred Moten , and McKenzie Wark .
But the incompleteness of the Deleuze archive ( he did not keep incoming letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his oeuvre ) can leave the reader of Letters wanting more , especially given Lapoujade ’ s hands-off editorial stance , which sends those curious about context to hunt through the stacks .
Deleuze begins his own bibliography , a draft of which is reproduced in Letters , in 1953 , after he passed the agrégation in philosophy and published his first monograph , Empiricism and Subjectivity , on the Scottish Enlightenment thinker David Hume .
( Notes for two courses on Hume , also published here , emphasize the extent of Deleuze @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a glimpse into his pedagogical style . )
Deleuze dedicated the 1950s and ’ 60s to single-author studies , culminating in two dissertations defended in the wake of May 1968 : one on Spinoza , supervised by Ferdinand Alquié ( favorable reviews of two of Alquié ’ s books are included in Letters ) , and another that would become his most important book written without Guattari , Difference and Repetition , a “ philosophy of difference ” that inverts Kant ’ s “ transcendental idealism.
” This “ transcendental empiricism , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ maintains that there is a difference in nature between the empirical and the transcendental… , presupposes that the transcendental is itself experience , experimentation , and finally posits a complete immanence between the two.
” It is here that Deleuze ’ s work most resembles the deconstruction of Derrida , whose own Writing and Difference and Of Grammatology came out the year before , and the perceived failure of their students to change the world that spring usually serves as the historical signpost that imbued poststructuralism with such promise .
The idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than its cause , allowed this generation of French philosophers to move beyond Marx and Freud and consequently helped empower the evolution of identity politics in the American academy in the 1980s and ’ 90s , resisting codification and critique by neoliberals from Bernard-Henri Lévy to Camille Paglia simultaneous with its co-option on the right .
If our experience of difference actualizes the formation of ideas , Deleuze concluded , then “ the concepts of knowledge , morality , religion , etc .
can only dissolve ” under the scrutiny of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in fact , to be the sum of heterogeneous molecules ; observed through Deleuze ’ s microscope , the one becomes many .
Intellectual historians credit Deleuze for inventing a left Nietzscheanism in his second monograph , Nietzsche and Philosophy .
When the book was published in 1962 , the German philosopher was widely read as a reactionary , not least because of his appropriation by the Nazis , and Deleuze played a prominent role in rehabilitating his reputation in France .
( Walter Kaufmann ’ s Nietzsche : Philosopher , Psychologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the preceding decade performed an analogous function in the United States . )
Deleuze characterized Nietzsche as a philosopher of difference , filiating his work to Spinoza ( who was Jewish ) and interpreting On the Genealogy of Morality as an attempted revision of Kant ’ s Critique of Pure Reason .
This strategy is representative of Deleuze ’ s method , as he explained in a letter to one of his commentators , Arnaud Villani , in 1986 : That a writer known for his difficulty was so uncomplicated in his submissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in his letters to friends confirms that comprehensibility was not what he was after in the major texts , which are “ about ” something else altogether .
One of the most valuable inclusions in Letters is an interview that film scholar Raymond Bellour conducted with Deleuze and Guattari in 1973 for Les Temps Modernes , the journal run by Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir , although the interview was never published , because Guattari disapproved of the magazine ’ s Maoist leanings .
It was recorded on the occasion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s first collaboration , which with A Thousand Plateaus constitutes Capitalism and Schizophrenia , a voluminous demonstration of the theoretical practice they call “ schizoanalysis , ” drawn largely from Guattari ’ s experience at La Borde , an experimental clinic in the Loire Valley founded by Jean Oury , a student of Lacan , in 1953 .
Deleuze and Guattari began working on Anti-Oedipus almost immediately after meeting in the spring of 1969 , just before Deleuze ’ s appointment ( at Foucault ’ s recommendation ) to the University of Paris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his retirement in 1987 .
The correspondence through which their cooperation was born is the most substantial of that presented in Letters , and although it is one-sided and not without unfortunate gaps , both the letters and the interview do much to flesh out the details glossed over in the opening sentences of A Thousand Plateaus : “ The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together .
Since each of us was several , there was already quite a crowd.
” While Guattari comes off in the interview as impatient , sarcastic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions as “ lousy ” and “ stupid , ” Deleuze is genial and self-effacing , accepting blame for the “ academic aspect ” of Anti-Oedipus , which he acknowledges to be a “ real bother ” ; after he returns from a phone call , Guattari says that he told Bellour “ the opposite of what you said , ” to which Deleuze replies , “ Good .
Very good.
” The same is true of the correspondence , which reveals him to be humble ( insisting on the magnitude of Guattari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to dissuade Villani from writing about his work for the sake of the younger scholar ’ s career ) , effusive ( in his praise of the Romanian poet Gherasim Luca ) , and kind ( to Klossowski and Foucault , despite eventual fallings-out ) , even as he commits the venal sins endemic to academic life : to Jean Piel , editor of Critique , he belatedly shirks an assignment on Céline in favor of an article on masochism ( reprinted in Letters ) ; in a subsequent letter , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the 15 pages we agreed on , I am…sending you 26.
” Mild in disposition , Deleuze was revolutionary in thought , and in the interview with Bellour , his outlook remains forward-thinking , avant-garde , almost punk : “ Félix and I , in any case , and a certain number of people , we are not alone , we don ’ t give a damn.
” It would be shortsighted to deduce from this that his ideas bear no influence on the material world , which in its current state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bloat , could use them more than ever .
But to understand concepts like “ flux ” or “ lines of flight ” or the “ body without organs , ” Deleuze insisted , it was not necessary to grasp what they mean ; rather , one should read a work like Anti-Oedipus “ spontaneously , ” like poetry , and ask : Does it pass ?
“ It ’ s of the same domain as the electrical outlet .
A machine that doesn ’ t work , you need another outlet or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that.
” The sense one gets from reading these ephemera is hardly that of a giant resting on his laurels .
Instead , we have a portrait of a professional communicator both frustrated and inspired by his inability to communicate .
“ As soon as there is interpretation , there is shit , ” Deleuze told Bellour .
Deleuze was no scientist , but in Letters , he cuts the figure of a lab rat , as if to adopt a mantra from Beckett for his own purposes : “ Try again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ West quoted this bit , from the novella Worstward Ho , live on CNN in reaction to the protests over George Floyd ’ s murder , citing the insurrectionary power of “ the blues line from our Irish brother.
” All of which is to say that truth is not to be found in meaning , sense , summary , or translation .
It is through creativity , invention , trial , and inevitably error that radical work is done , and Deleuze ’ s catalog of concepts preserves a lifetime of failures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but merely one more author to be taken from behind .

“Academics’ lives are seldom interesting,” Gilles Deleuze told Magazine Littéraire in 1988. The life of the mind is not without some amusement: Professors “travel, of course,” the French philosopher continued, “but they travel by hot air, by taking part in things like conferences and discussions, by talking, endlessly talking.” Deleuze was more reclusive than many in the cohort referred to, primarily in Anglo-American circles, as “French theory,” and in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary—25 books published during his lifetime, cited to this day by diverse scholarly blocs—he declined to call himself an intellectual, sincerely or not. Intellectuals, he believed, “have views on everything,” but he had “no stock of views to draw on.” “What I know,” he added, “I know only from something I’m actually working on, and if I come back to something a few years later, I have to learn everything all over again.” Books in Review Letters and Other Texts By Gilles Deleuze; Edited by David Lapoujade; Translated by Ames Hodges Buy this book
Deleuze defenestrated himself seven years later, at the age of 70, when the respiratory problems that had plagued him since his youth made this work too much to endure. What Is Philosophy?, his final collaboration with the psychiatrist Félix Guattari, was published in English in 1994, the year before he died, and posited an answer to its titular question: “Philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts.” Like painting, architecture, music, or cinema, as he wrote in his two-volume study of the last art form, philosophy lays “claim to the new materials and means that the future makes possible.” Deleuze thus summarized a career spent prognosticating the potentials immanent in the subjects he studied: the history of philosophy from Spinoza and Leibniz through Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson, and his friend Michel Foucault; what he and Guattari called the “minor” literatures of Kafka, Proust, Sacher-Masoch, Lewis Carroll, William S. Burroughs, and others; the theater of Beckett and Artaud, the paintings of Francis Bacon, the music of John Cage, Olivier Messiaen, and Pierre Boulez. He described this methodology as “buggery” or “immaculate conception”: “I saw myself as taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offspring, yet monstrous.”
He wasn’t kidding. As the Explain Deleuze meme satirically attests, the author’s writing is known to be painfully difficult, even impenetrable; this is the foremost reason that commentaries on his work now comprise “Deleuze studies,” a distinct if interdisciplinary field. It is to this community alone, perhaps, that the publication of Letters and Other Texts is a highly anticipated release: the third and presumably final volume of outtakes edited by David Lapoujade and published by Semiotext(e), more than a decade after Desert Islands and Other Texts, 1953–1974 and Two Regimes of Madness, 1975–1995. While these earlier editions were among the first to make available English translations of shorter texts that many would consider key to understanding Deleuze’s thought—such as “Intellectuals and Power,” a 1972 interview between Deleuze and Foucault collected in Desert Islands—the pieces compiled in Letters are much less canonical; for that reason, they fascinate as much as they unnerve, leaving the door of the vault open behind them in suggestion that there isn’t much left to find. By collecting these remnants, Letters secures Deleuze’s passage into the realm of a historical figure—like his forebears, an object of study—once and for all, a quarter-century after his death. What the book lacks in the biographical intrigue readers pryingly desire, it makes up for in a scholastic gravitas befitting its subject, further clarifying the development of Deleuze’s corpus if not the intimacies of his personal life. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Deleuze was born in Paris in 1925 to conservative, middle-class parents and grew up in the shadow of his older brother, Georges, who joined the Resistance during the Nazi occupation, for which he was arrested and died en route to a concentration camp. Gilles discovered philosophy in 1943 and the following year enrolled at the Sorbonne, having already established himself in the salons of Marie-Magdeleine Davy, a left-wing Catholic medievalist, and Marcel Moré, a Jules Verne scholar. These gatherings were frequented by such luminaries as Jean-Paul Sartre, Georges Bataille, Pierre Klossowski, Alexandre Kojève, Jean Hyppolite, and Maurice de Gandillac.
The group was responsible for Germanizing the trajectory of French philosophy, shifting the focal point toward Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger, and facilitating the transition from the phenomenology of Bergson and Merleau-Ponty to the structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss, Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, and Louis Althusser, which the work of Deleuze, Foucault, and Jacques Derrida (all students of Hyppolite and Gandillac) would affirm and then succeed.
Deleuze’s first publications, included in Letters, ape the style of Sartre most proudly, at times embarrassingly so. The first, “Description of Women,” published in the journal Poésie when Deleuze was 20, presages the concept of “becoming-woman” that he would develop, with Guattari, in A Thousand Plateaus, to the bemusement of some feminists. And not without cause here, either: “The body of the woman is the overwhelming triumph of flesh,” the young Deleuze virginally argues. “The woman is a concrete universal; she is a world, not an externalized world, but under the world, the warm interiority of the world, a compressed internalized world. Whence the prodigious sexual success of women: possessing a woman is possessing the world.”
As Lapoujade notes in the foreword, Deleuze later denounced this juvenilia, “although their publication can no longer be avoided,” as the texts “were being circulated without authorization, and sometimes in a form that contained errors.” Fanny Deleuze, the philosopher’s widow, wrote to Semiotext(e) founder Sylvère Lotringer in advance of Desert Islands’ appearance that her husband left “very specific indications concerning posthumous publications,” but the family’s authorization of Letters seems resigned to the fact that Deleuzians are something like the Deadheads of the theory world: techno-savvy, organized, and obsessively invested in even the scrappiest bootlegs. This is, in part, because many of Deleuze and Guattari’s concepts—“rhizome” among them—were fundamental to early theorizations of the Internet and digital culture, not to mention the thought of former colleagues Alain Badiou and Antonio Negri (whose own co-author, Michael Hardt, was a student of Deleuze) and post-Marxist theorists of science, gender, media, and race from Slavoj Žižek and Jacques Rancière to Isabelle Stengers, Elizabeth Grosz, Fred Moten, and McKenzie Wark. But the incompleteness of the Deleuze archive (he did not keep incoming letters, not counting correspondence as part of his oeuvre) can leave the reader of Letters wanting more, especially given Lapoujade’s hands-off editorial stance, which sends those curious about context to hunt through the stacks. Related Article The Other Foucault Bruce Robbins
Deleuze begins his own bibliography, a draft of which is reproduced in Letters, in 1953, after he passed the agrégation in philosophy and published his first monograph, Empiricism and Subjectivity, on the Scottish Enlightenment thinker David Hume. (Notes for two courses on Hume, also published here, emphasize the extent of Deleuze’s specialization and provide readers with a glimpse into his pedagogical style.) Deleuze dedicated the 1950s and ’60s to single-author studies, culminating in two dissertations defended in the wake of May 1968: one on Spinoza, supervised by Ferdinand Alquié (favorable reviews of two of Alquié’s books are included in Letters), and another that would become his most important book written without Guattari, Difference and Repetition, a “philosophy of difference” that inverts Kant’s “transcendental idealism.” This “transcendental empiricism,” Deleuze explained to a correspondent later, “maintains that there is a difference in nature between the empirical and the transcendental…, presupposes that the transcendental is itself experience, experimentation, and finally posits a complete immanence between the two.”
It is here that Deleuze’s work most resembles the deconstruction of Derrida, whose own Writing and Difference and Of Grammatology came out the year before, and the perceived failure of their students to change the world that spring usually serves as the historical signpost that imbued poststructuralism with such promise. The idea that identity is an effect of difference, rather than its cause, allowed this generation of French philosophers to move beyond Marx and Freud and consequently helped empower the evolution of identity politics in the American academy in the 1980s and ’90s, resisting codification and critique by neoliberals from Bernard-Henri Lévy to Camille Paglia simultaneous with its co-option on the right. If our experience of difference actualizes the formation of ideas, Deleuze concluded, then “the concepts of knowledge, morality, religion, etc. can only dissolve” under the scrutiny of critique. Any apparent unity is revealed, in fact, to be the sum of heterogeneous molecules; observed through Deleuze’s microscope, the one becomes many.
Intellectual historians credit Deleuze for inventing a left Nietzscheanism in his second monograph, Nietzsche and Philosophy. When the book was published in 1962, the German philosopher was widely read as a reactionary, not least because of his appropriation by the Nazis, and Deleuze played a prominent role in rehabilitating his reputation in France. (Walter Kaufmann’s Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist and subsequent English translations in the preceding decade performed an analogous function in the United States.) Deleuze characterized Nietzsche as a philosopher of difference, filiating his work to Spinoza (who was Jewish) and interpreting On the Genealogy of Morality as an attempted revision of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. This strategy is representative of Deleuze’s method, as he explained in a letter to one of his commentators, Arnaud Villani, in 1986:
I believe a book, if it deserves to exist, can be presented in three quick aspects: you do not write a “worthy” book unless: 1) you think that the books on the same subject or on a neighboring subject fall into a type of overall error (polemical function of the book); 2) you think that something essential has been forgotten in relation to the subject (inventive function); 3) you believe yourself capable of creating a new concept (creative function).
That a writer known for his difficulty was so uncomplicated in his submissions to journals, in his lectures, and in his letters to friends confirms that comprehensibility was not what he was after in the major texts, which are “about” something else altogether.
One of the most valuable inclusions in Letters is an interview that film scholar Raymond Bellour conducted with Deleuze and Guattari in 1973 for Les Temps Modernes, the journal run by Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, although the interview was never published, because Guattari disapproved of the magazine’s Maoist leanings. It was recorded on the occasion of the publication of Anti-Oedipus, the duo’s first collaboration, which with A Thousand Plateaus constitutes Capitalism and Schizophrenia, a voluminous demonstration of the theoretical practice they call “schizoanalysis,” drawn largely from Guattari’s experience at La Borde, an experimental clinic in the Loire Valley founded by Jean Oury, a student of Lacan, in 1953. Deleuze and Guattari began working on Anti-Oedipus almost immediately after meeting in the spring of 1969, just before Deleuze’s appointment (at Foucault’s recommendation) to the University of Paris VIII, where he would teach until his retirement in 1987. The correspondence through which their cooperation was born is the most substantial of that presented in Letters, and although it is one-sided and not without unfortunate gaps, both the letters and the interview do much to flesh out the details glossed over in the opening sentences of A Thousand Plateaus: “The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together. Since each of us was several, there was already quite a crowd.”
While Guattari comes off in the interview as impatient, sarcastic, and brusque, dismissing Bellour’s questions as “lousy” and “stupid,” Deleuze is genial and self-effacing, accepting blame for the “academic aspect” of Anti-Oedipus, which he acknowledges to be a “real bother”; after he returns from a phone call, Guattari says that he told Bellour “the opposite of what you said,” to which Deleuze replies, “Good. Very good.” The same is true of the correspondence, which reveals him to be humble (insisting on the magnitude of Guattari’s contributions), conscientious (attempting to dissuade Villani from writing about his work for the sake of the younger scholar’s career), effusive (in his praise of the Romanian poet Gherasim Luca), and kind (to Klossowski and Foucault, despite eventual fallings-out), even as he commits the venal sins endemic to academic life: to Jean Piel, editor of Critique, he belatedly shirks an assignment on Céline in favor of an article on masochism (reprinted in Letters); in a subsequent letter, he admits, “Instead of limiting myself to the 15 pages we agreed on, I am…sending you 26.”
Mild in disposition, Deleuze was revolutionary in thought, and in the interview with Bellour, his outlook remains forward-thinking, avant-garde, almost punk: “Félix and I, in any case, and a certain number of people, we are not alone, we don’t give a damn.” It would be shortsighted to deduce from this that his ideas bear no influence on the material world, which in its current state, collapsed beneath capitalism’s sickening bloat, could use them more than ever. But to understand concepts like “flux” or “lines of flight” or the “body without organs,” Deleuze insisted, it was not necessary to grasp what they mean; rather, one should read a work like Anti-Oedipus “spontaneously,” like poetry, and ask: Does it pass? “It’s of the same domain as the electrical outlet. A machine that doesn’t work, you need another outlet or another machine. Our book is like that.”
The sense one gets from reading these ephemera is hardly that of a giant resting on his laurels. Instead, we have a portrait of a professional communicator both frustrated and inspired by his inability to communicate. “As soon as there is interpretation, there is shit,” Deleuze told Bellour. Deleuze was no scientist, but in Letters, he cuts the figure of a lab rat, as if to adopt a mantra from Beckett for his own purposes: “Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” Cornel West quoted this bit, from the novella Worstward Ho, live on CNN in reaction to the protests over George Floyd’s murder, citing the insurrectionary power of “the blues line from our Irish brother.” All of which is to say that truth is not to be found in meaning, sense, summary, or translation. It is through creativity, invention, trial, and inevitably error that radical work is done, and Deleuze’s catalog of concepts preserves a lifetime of failures instructive to our moment—not as a bible, but merely one more author to be taken from behind.