Historical Materialism panel: Theorising Contemporary Racisms posted by Richard Seymour

This is the audio of the panel featuring myself, Félix Boggio Éwanjé-Épée, and Razmig Keucheyan on the subject of ‘Theorising Contemporary Racisms’.  My own segment, on 'Poulantzas and racial states in crisis', is first.  Felix’s speech is based on a paper co-written with Stella Magliani-Belkacem, which I will be hosting on this blog.

Labels: anti-racism, poulantzas, race, racial formation, racism, state, tea party

Moving On from Zizek (or not) posted by Richard Seymour

I agree with those who say we should move on from Zizek.  And I would have nothing more to say about this debate, if people would stop defending Zizek on utterly spurious grounds.  However, I have had my ear nipped by a number of people who want to challenge my recent criticisms of Zizek, and the sheer irrationality of the defences offered is jaw-dropping.  On Twitter, for example, @khephir argued that Zizek was not attempting to vilify gypsies, but to “immanentize” them.  Asked if the specific claims about gypsies were correct, @khephir replied that “looking for truth in argumentation” is “silly”.  The claims about gypsies being thieves and murderers are “rhetorical”, not “critical or exhaustive”, and anyway “we’re all thieves and murderers”.  If you’re not laughing, you need to pinch yourself.  There’s others, but I’ll spare you.

More seriously, though in my opinion not much more seriously, the blogger ‘Sebastian Wright’ has engaged in a critique of my overall criticisms of Zizek, which he attempts to read symptomatically in light of the SWP’s politics of anti-racism, with which Sebastian has differences.  He alleges that after I started to criticise Zizek when he made what I thought was an appalling argument about the ‘Danish cartoons’ bullshit (sorry, ‘controversy’), I have “operated via a single strategy: take Žižek’s reflections on a subject, from whatever angle they might be, and simply shout them down with charges of racism: a kind of rhetorical ‘nuclear option’.”

Hot crackers, I take exception to that.  I don’t go around baselessly accusing superstar philosophers of racism.  Where I have accused Zizek of engaging in racism, I have dealt with specific examples, providing details and argument.  In this specific instance, I simply ask: are Zizek’s claims about the gypsies, and specifically the Strojan family, true? Is he merely stating a well-known truth, something which the politically correct brigade is trying to suppress, or is he fabricating, lying egregiously? The answer is that it’s the latter.  I find no evidence that the Strojan family are car thieves, and they didn’t murder anyone.  It is true that locals blamed the Strojan family for a number of thefts, but it’s also true that they acknowledge when pressed that the Strojans have been scapegoated on this issue. So, what Zizek said wasn’t true and, pardon me, he had no good grounds for claiming it to be true. Did Sebastian bother to check this before reflexively leaping to Zizek’s defence? No sign of it in this post.

Next question: if it wasn’t true, then why would he say it? The context is that he’s denying, or at least putting in serious doubt, the idea that the pogrom against the Strojan family was racist, and that the mob itself was racist. He puts this charge in scare quotes. He’s trying to explain the terrible burden of living with a gypsy family nearby, in order to give a real, material pretext for the violence. I do not say that he cheered on the violence. I was quite specific about this.  He championed the mob and its ‘legitimate grievances’ – a familiar technique of right-wing tabloids and shock-jock commentators.  He’s acting as an advocate for the poor, ordinary guy whose son comes home beaten up by gypsies, and who lashes out in grief. So his fabrications – and they are fabrications – are an act of apologia.

Third question: can such allegations be separated from the racist discourses about gypsies that are current in Europe, and particularly in Slovenia where this pogrom took place? These discourses have long depict gypsies as anti-social thieves and killers.  Such was a key component of the ideological basis of the Nazis’ extermination programme. These discourses scapegoat gypsies for real social problems – there is theft and murder and anti-social behaviour as a matter of course in all capitalist societies. They Other the gypsies, making them appear as an alien intrusion in an otherwise cohesive, integrative society.  In Slovenia, there are over ninety gypsy settlements.  Gypsies have long sought legal normalization, an end to segregation in schools, an end to de facto segregation in access to property, infrastructure, running water, and that sort of thing. The discourses which dehumanise them as anti-social, a burden, thieves and killers, aside from just happening to rely on anecdotes which – where they can be checked – prove to be untrue, blame gypsies for this appalling state of affairs, and validate their racial oppression. Zizek’s specific claims, aside from being untrue, and hitched to an unjustified apologia for a racist mob, are inseparable from these wider discourses from which they were undoubtedly culled.

It is so important to get the facts right about this, as the consequences could not be graver.  The demonisation of gypsies is liable to get someone killed – how’s that for a rhetorical nuclear option?  In light of this, to refer coyly to “real antagonisms” just isn’t good enough.

***

I am also, as part of this wider critique, misrepresented over the Danish bullshit: “Seymour simply asserts that cartoons lampooning Muhammed are racist, ergo any attempt to think the reaction to them as anything more than justified rage against an obviously evil act of injustice is also racist.”  Those of you who spent time on the blog during that disgusting fiasco will remember that I was prepared to be quite boring on the subject.  I went into some considerable length and detail, through a number of posts, explaining why these specific cartoons (not just any old cartoons lampooning Muhammad) were racist.

The cartoons collectively drew on a series of essentialising tropes about Islam that have nothing to do with the facts of Islam, but which have everything to do with the demonisation of Islam. These held that Islam is, from is inception, a doctrine of violence, fanaticism, and the oppression of women. It so happens that this isn’t true.  The cartoon about the virgins for suicide martyrs, for example, reproduces with a commonplace idea held about Muslims and their beliefs among Europeans and Americans.  But it is not based on anything in the Quran or the Prophetic Tradition. These are tropes which became important to colonial pedagogy because of the encounter with Muslim resistance to empire, in Indian in 1857, in Egypt in 1882, in Sudan in 1898, in Iraq in 1920, and so on.  In each of these cases, resistance had to be explained in terms that did not reference the injustice of imperial predation. It was therefore explained in terms of, among other things, Mahometan fanaticism and a propensity toward violence.

“Imperial feminism” in the same era depicted colonised male subjects as being inherently more barbaric in their treatment of women.  In practise this conviction, which was propagated by the likes of colonial administrator John Stuart Mill and perpetuated by conservative, bourgeois feminists, weakened the struggle against female oppression in Europe. It formed part of the advocacy for empire, as in Mill’s famous arguments, after the 1857 uprising, for the East India Company’s progressive social role in India.  So, the treatment of Muslim males as being inherently more barbaric in their treatment of women has a pedigree, and its function today is not dissimilar to that of its original formulation.

The soliciting and repeated publication of these cartoons, the refusal to acknowledge diplomacy for months before there was a single protest, and the desperate attempts by newspapers to provoke a reaction by talking them up before there was a reaction, is obviously not separable from the context of the ‘war on terror’ and the civilizational narratives that have moralised and rationalised its prosecution. So, again, I charge racism on very specific grounds that the implied depiction of the subject is false, Othering, and is part of the means by which their oppression is validated and perpetuated. Sebastian may disagree with this.  But no one, certainly none of Zizek’s defenders, has been willing to engage with the argument on its own level.

Sebastian also alleges that my position on the Danish cartoons logically entails that the “reaction to [the cartoons]” doesn’t deserve real anatomisation.  Any attempt to read into them more than a reaction to injustice is written off as racist, he avers.  This is not so.  I am more than happy to countenance an analysis of protests against Danish cartoons which suggests that they are more than a protest against an injustice. Arguably, other dynamics included the willingness of US client-states to allow people to vent steam over the issue.  But it is unreasonable, putting it no more strongly than that, to write off any injustice without proper consideration of the issues. Further, as I argued, Zizek is not plainly equipped to carry out such an anatomy. An important part of his argument was that Muslims were targeting Denmark despite its being a haven of tolerance, despites its efforts to be open to all races, creeds and cultures. But those who follow these sorts of things knew that this was false. Denmark was never the epitome of tolerance, and certainly neverparticularly tolerant of its Muslim minority.  And unfortunately, when Zizek comes to explaining what the protests are “really” about, he falls back on a crude, essentialist analysis of Islam and its texts, which bears the same relation to Islam and its believers as Raphael Patai’s work does to the ‘Arab mind’.

***

Lastly, the symptomatic critique holds that the SWP is trying to uphold a liberal anti-racism, in its efforts to defend oppressed communities in the UK, and that my position on Zizek’s outbursts on the gypsies amounts to nothing more than a defensive  This ‘liberalism’ is chiefly expressed in, whisper it, “permanent united fronts with Tories, right-wing Muslim groups, and so on”.  This works by conflating a tactic, the united front, with an ideology.  It also conflates specific work on combatting fascism, with wider anti-racist work and output.  The SWP’s position on fighting fascism is simply that it will work with whoever is opposed to fascism.  In Unite Against Fascism (UAF), this unites a part of the Labour Left, some of the trade union bureaucracy, mainstream Muslim groups, Jewish anti-racist organisations, the SWP and independents.  We are open about our politics within UAF, but we don’t expect everyone else in that organisation to share our perspective.  The Tories’ only involvement to date involved David Cameron signing the UAF’s founding declaration.  I make no apologies for the fact that Cameron felt that he had to associate himself with this campaign.  As for the SWP’s position on the short-comings of ‘multiculturalism’ and liberal anti-racism, this has been outlined in the journal, in the newspaper, and at public events.  My view, stated plainly, has been that the neo-Powellite revival of racism has operated partially occupying some of the ideological terrain mapped out by official multiculturalism.  Our analysis of racism is unapologetically marxist, our response based on that marxist analysis.  But if it’s true that in my criticisms of Zizek I am basically upholding the SWP’s politics of anti-racism, then those politics would seem to be validated here. They certainly have a clear political advantage over any position which perpetuates malicious, racist falsehoods, in a context in which the perpetuation of those falsehoods is actually lethal.

Labels: anti-fascism, anti-imperialism, anti-racism, antifascism, colonialism, europe, gypsies, islam, islamophobia, racism, unite against fascism, zizek

The Glenn Beck of the contrarian left posted by Richard Seymour

Labels: anti-racism, feminism, gay rights, homophobia, neoliberalism, patriarchy, racism, sexism, socialism

United East End demo posted by Richard Seymour

There were at least a few thousand people at today's United East End demonstration, an anti-racist gathering supported by the trade unions, religious organisations and local politicians. The crowd mainly comprised local people, kids from the housing estates, a few people from the mosques, churches and synagogues, and a rather small contingent of leftists. It's worth noting that some of those who had expressed opposition to holding the rally nonetheless spoke at it, including the council leader and Bethnal Green & Bow MP Rushanara Ali. It might be relevant to note that there's an East London mayoral election coming up. As far as I could make out, George Galloway received by far the strongest reception at the rally, which was held at Altab Ali park after the demonstration. In general, my impression was that the most popular speakers were well-known local left-wingers such as Rania Khan and Lutfa Begum, former Respect councillors now belonging to the Labour group.

Some, including a few senior Labourites such as Jim Fitzpatrick, had suggested that such a rally could only cause 'trouble'. The logic behind this assertion is obscure, but perhaps it says something about the way the authorities look upon the young Bengali men who turned out in large numbers. Further anecdotal evidence of a peculiar official attitude to said people can be gleaned from the police's provocative behaviour after the event had passed off without disturbance. This included, I am told, refusing to allow white people to walk up Whitechapel because they alleged that Bengalis were violently attacking whites at random. Socialist Worker's report doesn't go quite that far, but notes that police "advised white people not to walk along the road 'because of fears about their safety'", which is ridiculous, nasty, and divisive behaviour. Interesting is it not? When fascists riot, we are told that they are giving expression to "legitimate concerns". When anti-fascists hold peaceful, democratic rallies, we are told they are merely causing trouble. From what perspective, I ask you, can such assertions hold true?

Labels: anti-fascism, anti-racism, east london, english defence league, fascism, islamophobia, new labour, racism, uaf

The real eastenders posted by Richard Seymour

You probably didn't hear about this, but the other day some members of the English Defence League engaged in a sort kamikaze mission in Whitechapel, attacking members of the public and ripping the garments off Muslim women. They were rapidly outnumbered by the arrival of hundreds of locals, and police had to lock the EDL idiots in Whitechapel tube station for a few hours. This suicide attack, as it were, was probably the result of despair after the EDL leadership called off an equally suicidal march into the East End, purportedly against an Islamic conference that was to take place on 20th June (that's this Sunday). Now, even if there had been no political response to this, such a march would likely have provoked enormous opposition in this working class heartland.

But there was an immediate response, which was to call a United East End march to oppose the EDL - supported by several trade unions, by UAF, Love Music Hate Racism, by the Muslim Council of Britain, and by the Islamic Forum of Europe. As I've said before, it's important that there is a political response to such attacks, because groups like the EDL and their BNP allies want to polarise the community along racist lines. 17 years ago, the BNP made a small step in this direction by getting their first councillor elected in Tower Hamlets. The council's decision to rehouse Bangladeshi families in Millwall properties that could not be sold was being treated as an act of positive discrimination by the Liberals, who attempted to exploit the issue to win a seat that had come up for bye-election. The BNP, which had been building some pockets of support in the East End in the early 1990s, took the seat and only lost it after an energetic local campaign. They were subsequently shut out of Tower Hamlets for a long time. They stand candidates in places like Millwall and Bow West, but have yet to make a real breakthrough.

Now mark the response of the local Labour leadership. Tower Hamlets council, in the persons of leader Helal Abbas and deputy leader Josh Peck, put tremendous pressure on the organisers of said Islamic conference to call it off, citing allegations of 'views attributed to some of the speakers'. The organisers, the Islamic Society of City University (Isoc), are hardly a threat to anyone, though they are constantly being witch-hunted by the usual dirt from the Centre for Social Cohesion, and subject to repeated baiting by the City Inquirer and the scum over at Harry's Place. The Isoc works in an institution where Muslims are under increasing scrutiny. For example, lecturer Rosie Waterhouse recently called for the banning of the niqab there on the pathetic grounds that she found such dress 'threatening'. Muslims were also attacked in a spate of racist assaults near City University last year, though perversely the university management has used this as an excuse to close the Muslim prayer room. At any rate, the EDL, aware of the allegations against Isoc, attempted to exploit them. And the council seems to have responded by treating Isoc, an entirely peaceful organisation, as an equivalent to the violent bampots of the EDL.

The council also applied pressure to the conference hosts, the Troxy, to cancel the event, saying that they might have to review their working relationship with the company otherwise. That's a pretty big club to bring to any negotiation. The Troxy complied, and the event is looking for another venue. The EDL leadership, admitting that they would have been hammered had they tried to enter Tower Hamlets, called off the demonstration, claiming a victory. The United East End march, intended to underline the refusal of local communities to be divided along racial lines, is still going ahead. It's important, because these racist provocateurs have proven that they are intent on continuing to try and polarise the situation. There are, of course, other activities planned. The EDL are still going to try and march on Wembley, where they are likely to receive just as hostile a reception.

But there is a background of Islamophobic baiting of Tower Hamlets council. This includes Andrew Gilligan's creepy tirade against the Islamic Forum of Europe, through which the media has attempted to attack municipal multiculturalism. The EDL are simply trying to capitalise on that, attempting to position themselves as the cutting edge of the Islamophobic wedge being driven through the East End. The council, as its lobbying of the Troxy shows, is inclined to give in to some of this pressure. The United East End march will be attended by Labour councillors, including Helal Abbas, but it is only fair to note that the East London papers report pressure on the anti-fascists from some local politicians. Predictably, Jim Fitzpatrick, who saw off George Galloway's challenge in the 2010 election by baiting Muslims, has attacked the anti-fascists. You can't expect better from someone like Fitzpatrick. Sadly, Rushanara Ali, who took Galloway's former constituency back for Labour, also called for the march to be called off. It may be of relevance that both local MPs are backing Oona King's bid for mayor against Ken Livingstone. Now Tower Hamlets council, symbolising its commitment to "community cohesion", is flying the England flag from the Town Hall for the duration of the World Cup. Such pointless, trivial gestures neither fulfil their anti-racist mandate nor placate the racist right.

I think this has to be contextualised in terms of the turn being taken by the Labour Party nationally. If the last decade was marked by a revival of neo-Powellite ideology on the Labour right, among the Blairites in particular, that ideological turn is now being aggressively expounded by Labour leadership contenders over, eg, immigration. In a self-serving gesture, they claim that such politics will enable Labour to make amends with "the white working class". This is a cynical move. I suspect that people like Balls believe that by conceding ground to racist hysteria, they can both capitalise on it and contain it. That is reckless, and foolish. Caving in to the racists just gives them more credibility, more armoury, and more space to build in. It benefits the right, in more ways than one. Is it not alarming to Labour members that David Cameron could actually attack Balls from the left over this, characterising the latter as Labour's Alf Garnett? The other context, of course, is the local collapse of Respect. It has one councillor left in Tower Hamlets and no MPs. This doesn't mean its support is negligible, or that it couldn't carry on as a viable local organisation, but its previous clout might have allowed it to resist some of this rightward lurch. I hope it will do well in the upcoming East London mayoral ballot. Because it is the Fitzpatricks of the East End, not the antifascists, who are pursuing genuinely divisive politics, setting working class communities against one another, and attacking the anti-racist consensus that had been established until recently, and giving ammunition to the racists.

Labels: anti-fascism, anti-racism, blairites, east london, islamophobia, multiculturalism, new labour, tower hamlets, uaf, working class

A brief guide to reaction posted by Richard Seymour

Labels: anti-racism, feminism, left, political correctness, racism, reactionaries, reactionary subjectivity, sexism

Historical Materialism conference: Many Marxisms posted by Richard Seymour

After the light-weight, syrupy spiritual uplift of the Obama victory, it's time to get hardcore again. Get down to SOAS today, why not, and take part in the fifth annual Historical Materialism conference:

THEMES COVERED WILL INCLUDE:

APPROACHING PASSIVE REVOLUTIONS * ART AND CAPITALISM * ASPECTS OF IMPERIALISM * BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE * BEYOND GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN ANALYSIS IN COMMODITY STUDIES * BOLSHEVISM: YESTERDAY AND TOMORROW * CAPITALISM / KNOWLEDGE CAPITALISM * CAPITALISM AND ARCHITECTURE * CLIMATE CHANGE, SUSTAINABILITY AND SOCIALISM * CONTEMPORARY RADICAL THOUGHT AND MARXISM: AGAMBEN, HOLLOWAY, ZIZEK * EARLY MODERN CAPITALISM * ECOLOGICAL CRISIS AND MARXIST THEORY * EVERYDAY LIFE * FINANCE AND NEO-LIBERALISM * FINANCIALISATION AND CRISIS * FOOD CRISIS * FROM THE GRUNDRISSE TO CAPITAL * FUTURE OF WORLD CAPITALISM * HISTORICAL MATERIALISM AND LATE DEVELOPMENT * HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MARXISM * INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS * IS TODAY'S CAPITALISM ACTUALLY-EXISTING BARBARISM? * LABOUR-PROCESS AND RESISTANCE * LATIN AMERICAN LEFT TODAY * LEARNING FROM ENEMIES AND RIVALS: SCHMITT, STRAUSS, WEBER * LIFE, POLITICS & CAPITALISM * MANY MARXISMS AND INDIA * MANY MARXISMS: KEY FIGURES * MANY MARXISMS: PROBLEMS AND POLEMICS * MARX AND FETISHISM * MARX ON WORLD ECONOMY AND WORLD POLITICS * MARXISM AND CINEMA: FILM NOIR AND NEO-NOIR * MARXISM AND METROPOLITICS * MARXISM AND PHILOSOPHY * MARXISM AND THE SCIENCES * MARXISM OUTSIDE THE WEST * MARXISM, FEMINISM AND WOMEN’S POLITICS * MARXISMS AND LITERATURE * MARXISMS AND RELIGION * MARXISMS AND SOUTHERN AFRICA * MARXISMS AND VIOLENCES: GENDER AND RACE * MARXIST THEORIES OF PRACTICE * MODES OF FOREIGN RELATIONS * MONETARY POLICY AND BANKING UNDER NEOLIBERALISM * MONEY * NEGATIVITY AND REVOLUTION * NORTH EAST ASIAN MARXISMS AND SOCIALISMS * ON THE CONCEPT OF SURPLUS POPULATIONS * PERSPECTIVES FROM ALTHUSSER * PERSPECTIVES FROM MARX’S ‘JEWISH QUESTION’ * PHILOSOPHIES OF REVOLT AND REVOLUTION * PHILOSOPHY IN THE EARLY MARX * POLITICAL CATEGORIES OF MARXISM * POLITICAL ECONOMY AND ECONOMICS TODAY * POLITICS OF THE PROMOTION OF GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS * RACISM, CLASS AND POLITICS * RESTRUCTURING, CAPITAL AND LABOUR * REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS IN THE MIDDLE EAST * SEXUAL LIBERATION: HISTORICAL MATERIALIST APPROACHES * SITUATIONISM AT THE LIMITS: MUST WE BURN DEBORD? * SOCIALISM IN SEARCH OF AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM * STATE IN THE BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION * THEORIES OF CLASS * THEORIES OF IMPERIALISM * TIME, TEMPORALITY, HISTORY * TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE NEOLIBERAL STATE * UNEVEN AND COMBINED DEVELOPMENT: TOWARDS A MARXIST THEORY OF ‘THE INTERNATIONAL’? * US FINANCIAL POWER IN CRISIS * UTOPIANISM * VALUE: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS * ‘WESTERN’ MARXISM AND THE ANTI-COLONIAL WORLD/INTELLECTUALS * WINDOWS ON EMPIRE: PERSPECTIVES FROM HISTORY, CULTURE AND POLITICAL ECONOMY * WORKERISM: A GENERATION LATER *

PARTICIPANTS INCLUDE:

Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi, Gilbert Achcar, Talat Ahmed, Greg Albo, Jamie Allinson, Kevin Anderson, Ricardo Antunes, Giovanni Arrighi, Sam Ashman, Antonio Carmona Báez, Richard Bailey, Metin Bal, Colin Barker, Kate Bayliss, Pınar Bedirhanoğlu, Mike Beggs, Riccardo Bellofiore, Aaron Benanav, Ted Benton, Henry Bernstein, Cyrus Bina, Werner Bonefeld, Mark Bould, Pepijn Brandon, Peter Bratsis, Robert Brenner, Dennis Broe, Dick Bryan, Ergun Bulut, Verity Burgmann, Alex Callinicos, Paul Cammack, Mauro Farnesi Camellone, Al Campbell, Bob Cannon, Gavin Capps, Thomas Carmichael, Emilia Castorina, Maria Elisa Cevasco, Hsiu-Man Chen, Vivek Chibber, Alexander Chryssis, Martin Cobian, Peter Custers, John Darwin, Neil Davidson, Charles Davis, Chuck Davis, Gail Day, Tim Dayton, Roni Demirbag, Radhika Desai, Pat Devine, Paulo dos Santos, Peter Drucker, Jean-Numa Ducange, Gérard Duménil, Nick Dyer-Witheford, Timm Ebner, Bolivar Echeverria, Juliane Edler, Ersin Vedat Elgur, Katsuhiko Endo, Sara R. Farris, Lucy Ferguson, Don Filtzer, Ben Fine, Robert Fine, Bridget Fowler, Carl Freedman, Alan Freeman, Andrea Fumagalli, Cristina Morini, Lindsey German, Melanie Gilligan, Ruth Wilson Gilmour, Saroj Giri, Richard Godden, Maya Gonzalez, Jamie Gough, Peter Gowan, Kevin Gray, Nick Gray, Chris Harman, Barbara Harriss-White, Owen Hatherley, Cristoph Hermann, Andy Higginbottom, Mike Hill, Christian Høgsbjerg, Evren Hosgor, Nik Howard, David Jack, Elinor Jean, Oliver Jelinski, Nicholas Joll, Ismail Karatepe, Ken Kawashima, Paul Kellogg, Geoff Kennedy, Sami Khatib, Aykut Kilic, Donald Kingsbury, Nick Knight, Martijn Konings, Michael Krätke, Rick Kuhn, Ishay Landa, Tim Lang, Spyros Lapatsioras, Paul LeBlanc, Sergio Lessa, Alex Levant, Peter Linebaugh, Alex Loftus, Rob Lucas, Dennis Maeder, Matteo Mandarini, Christian Marazzi, Jonathan Martineau, Paul Mattick, David Mayer, Andrew McGettigan, Philip McMichael, David McNally, James Meadway, John Milios, Owen Miller, Andrew Milner, Dimitris Milonakis, John Molyneux, David Moore, Cristina Morini, Adam Morton, Zwi Negator, Susan Newman, Jörg Nowak, Benjamin Noys, Bertel Nygaard, Bridget O'Laughlin, Keith O’Regan, Sebnem Oguz, Ulrich Oslender, Ceren Özselçuk, Maria Cristina Soares Paniago, Leo Panitch, F. Papadatos, Juan Pablo Painceira Paschoa, Leda Maria Paulani, Simon Pirani, Iain Pirie, Nina Power, Gonzalo Pozo-Martin, Thomas Purcell, Diana Raby, Michael Rafferty, Geert Reuten, Paul Reynolds, Ben Richardson, John Riddell, John Roberts, Bruce Robinson, John Rose, Thomas Sablowski, Spyros Sakellaropoulos, Jorgen Sandemose, Saskia Sassen, Michael Sayeau, Sean Sayers, David Schwartzman, Alan Sears, Lynne Segal, Ben Selwyn, Sanjay Seth, Stuart Shields, Nicola Short, Joe Sim, Rick Simon, Subir Sinha, Panagiotis Sotiris, Dimitris P. Sotiropoulos, Kerstin Stakemeier, Guido Starosta, Marcel Stoetzler, Robert Stolz, Gaspar Miklós Tamás, Bruno Tinel, Peter Thomas, Massimiliano Tomba, Alberto Toscano, Greg Tuck, Mehmet Ufuk Tutan, Kees van der Pijl, Jan Douwe van der Ploeg, Carlo Vercellone, Danga Vileisis, Sherryl Vint, Satnam Virdee, Andriana Vlachou, Elisa Waeyenberge, Jeffery R. Webber, Dominic Wetzel, Adrian Wilding, Evan Calder Williams, Frieder Otto Wolf, Andrew Wright, Steve Wright, Galip Yalman, Iván Zatz

Labels: anti-imperialism, anti-racism, capitalism, feminism, historical materialism, marxism, socialism, theory