Reviews & Culture
by Apollo and E. A.
We attended a “Shut Down LD50” picket called by Hackney Stand Up to Racism in Dalston, an inner city suburb of London, on Feb, 25. The campaign was aimed at calling attention to the backstreet LD50 Gallery that had held a series of “alt-right” exhibitions and talks on its premises over a week last year. Around 250-300 people–both locals and political groups–turned up to protest the art gallery at short notice on a chilly Saturday morning. The event was organised through social media.
Hackney Stand Up to Racism was asking the local council to shut down the gallery.
The gallery has usually put on uncontroversial exhibitions–the exception being one by former Turner Prize nominees Jake and Dino Chapman–but this was the first exhibit dedicated to so-called “alt-right” themes of economics, genetics and immigration. The talks and discussions only recently caused considerable local alarm, as they seem to have been kept very low key until late last year. Some participants even claim they were duped into attending under false pretences. This brought into question owner Lucia Diego`s claims on local radio that the gallery wanted to start an artistic debate. Read More
Lately, some U.S. media have voiced criticism of the term “alt right” and have shown a little interest in exposing the extent of “fake news” going around.
On the first, I am happy to see people condemning the term “alt right” because it makes those crusaders for un-freedom sound as if they were a tendency within the Republican Party, which they were not before Trump captured the party; their form of reaction goes far beyond even the Tea Party wing of the Republicans. The criticism is that the term sounds makes the alt-right sound respectable, as if comparable to some new break-away form in music.
The undisputed essence of the “alt right” readily supplies a name for it: white supremacism. Its members unashamedly parrot and accept the backing of the Ku Klux Klan and other militant racist groups—anti-Black, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant, groups that the “mainstream media” had treated as disgraceful remnants of U.S. history for the past 50 years. Now, courtesy of Trump, these groups are treated by many as legitimate players on the political field.
The mainstream media also just discovered the extent of “fake news” that appears on the internet, on TV and in newspapers. This should have long been obvious to everyone who is not so committed to right-wing propaganda that they believe the fake news, and call the real news fake. Unfortunately, many people believe the most absurd nonsense, in spite of recent admissions from Russian web posters that they were paid by their government to create fake websites and stories for the U.S. market, the more outrageous the stories, the better.
The problem of fake news received some attention today because a man with a rifle was apprehended shooting up a pizzeria in Washington, D.C. He claimed he had come to free children who were hidden in the basement for the purpose of being sexually abused by Hillary Clinton. He had read about it on the internet.
The store doesn’t even have a basement, and the owner has no idea why he was targeted. He’s just glad he’s still alive.
Is Marx’s Theory of Profit Right? The Simultaneist-Temporalist Debate, edited by Nick Potts and Andrew Kliman
Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, 2015. 194pp., $80.00 / £52.95 hb. ISBN 9780739196311
Reviewed by Roel Van de Pol
This review was first published on the Marx and Philosophy Review of Books website on July 30, 2016.
For several decades now, proponents of the Temporal Single-System Interpretation (TSSI) have claimed that they have refuted an established “truth” that went essentially unchallenged for more than a century: the proof that Marx’s value theory, taken as he presented it, leads to logically inconsistent conclusions. The TSSI states, in short, that if Marx’s Capital is interpreted temporally (i.e. output unit values/prices are not considered equal to the unit values/prices of inputs needed to produce them) and in a single-system manner (i.e. the value transferred by inputs to outputs equals their prices, not their values), all of his disputed conclusions can be logically deduced from his presuppositions. By accepted exegetical standards, this would prove the superiority of TSSI authors’ reading of Marx. This claim directly contradicts the conventional interpretations of Marx, which TSSI proponents call simultaneist, that accept the proof of his inconsistency but claim to provide a viable correction to Marx’s supposed errors, contradicting some of his conclusions, but maintaining those that are (supposedly) essential to his world view.