FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Death in Tilburg

by TALAL ALYAN

For Alex Sellen.

It must have been past noon. The tough Dutch sunlight encroaching through the gauze curtains, only there for décor or propriety. I am reading a friend’s obituary. Everyone else in the house, an old friend and his lover who are hosting me, are still asleep. I take a moment to try and produce from the scene a revelation, an importance lesson of sorts to carry me, “a lullaby of closure” I think to myself. I like the way those words sound. Hemingway would impart a few strong words to himself, have a whiskey, and move on. Hemingway, I am not.

No fraudulent life lesson will alter this. No scene that appeals to my sense of the aesthetic will alter this. My god, it is fact. The finality of it. I draw myself to my inbox. And above all other messages is a long circulating thread about Egypt. ‘A coup by any other name’ it is titled, surely whoever began it fancied themself clever when he composed those words. The content is familiar. As I shift through it, I have to remind myself from time to time what is even about. It is a weariness I’ve felt more and more as I continue to delve into the gutter underworld of radical politics, whatever that term even means. Perhaps it was his death that pronounced that dread more than ever. I write the first sentence of my reply and gaze at it. Is this even important work?

It is a dread I suspect puts a lot of people off these kinds of politics. It isn’t often acknowledged, the toll it takes to engage in politics and discourses that have no wide venue, and then to find within them the disappointing allocation and wasting of time on decidedly unnecessary ideological disputes. It seems with ever news cycle more fractures are formed until one becomes acutely aware of what it really means to be a political independent.

And we lament or joke in amusement at just how few we really our. Sometimes it is easy to forget it when we eventually find we are surrounded by a circle that shares our passion for these kinds of work; though make no mistake about it those circles are minuscule, at times even resembling a noose. It is difficult. And at such a young age, I can’t even conceive the strain it must take on the veterans. Those who have dedicate year after, decade after decade, only to find the discourse continues to take on an almost caricature-like form, to find they are increasingly alone.

The problem then, as I see it, is two-fold. The fatigue that comes with exhausting our resources on quarrels that’s resolution bears no tangible importance or relevance. And the taxing nature of engaging in politics that are often marginal. The conclusion I arrive to is that both of these ills can be ameliorated by separating political causes from each other and, more crucially, any overarching ideological imperative. There should not be preconditions about whom one can work with on any given issue if they happen to see eye to eye on that particular issue. By that I mean, for example, if one has political grievances with another group’s stance on Libya, it should not prevent the individual from working with said group on environmental issues if both parties find themselves on the same side. I myself have said that I would not, as a Palestinian, be opposed to working with a staunch Zionist on issues unrelated to Israel-Palestine. The same framework can be extended to any number of issues. The profit gained from untangling issues and addressing them individually would mean larger solidarity movements, less internal quarrelling, and, ultimately, more action being taken.

It would also have therapeutic significance. It would drain the instinct to focus on perceived political betrayals and redirect our efforts to what drew most of us to politics in the first place: the perhaps misguided notion that something must be done, that the status quo just isn’t acceptable.

I am always reminded of a joke told to me by a former leftist who became a devoted conservative, as they do:

A young student is on his way to a protest to try to stop the demolition of a park. He runs into a Leninist, on his way to the same demonstration, who immediately asks what political group he holds membership to. The student says none and the Leninist begins to try selling his party to the student. They run into a Trotskyite, also en route to the protest, who asks the same question to the student and begins to argue with the Leninist. The group grows and grows until it is composed of persons of all leftist political stripes, all arguing with each other about ideology and history and the masses and the elites and the media and Middle-East and intervention and freedom. Eventually, the student notices that the group, now a mob, has stop moving towards the demonstration and is at a standstill quarrelling amongst each other. The student looks at his watch and hesitantly points out that they are going to miss the demonstration. “Silence!” the mob retorts in unison, “we are trying to save the park!”

And I think that might be the point we often neglect, that while there can be room for disagreement and critique, it cannot be all there is. What worth can there really be in politics composed solely of disagreement; one also has to stand for something and work towards it. And that work cannot always be burdened by the petty ideological and rhetorical quarrels that often consume so much of our time. As I sit here contemplating whether what I am saying is coherent or a byproduct of grief, I have to believe that there can exist a world where “the left” put aside their self-destructiveness and marches to the hypothetical park to demonstrate. Not that we must always agree, surely that tends to be a sign of miscalculation, but that we must ensure that when we do disagree it is done constructively. And that we not alienate people from our midst with our strange affinity for casting would-be political partners out, that we not embrace the superficial aspects of our fringe because after all that will only ensure we remain there. There may be no glory to radical politics; perhaps only the impulse towards those who suffer. But that may very well be enough. If only we could forfeit our fetish with “us and them” politics amongst each other.

Talal Alyan is a Palestinian-American freelance writer based in New York.

More articles by:
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail