1. How important is it to appeal to the Communist roots of globalization today?

The Communist International came about as a product of all previous practices of emancipatory movements. Coming a long way from the romanticism of the French Revolution and the utopian constructions of Saint-Simon, the Manifesto of 1848 crystallizes the idea that solidarity and “globality” are the main conditions for victory. Much in the same way, the Leninist Comintern was a synthesis of the qualitative development of the Social Democratic tradition and its proletarian organization, its class politics, but it also broke with these traditions radically in the name of the “Party of World Revolution”. It seems to me that as we pass into a new historical situation, it becomes necessary to formulate and make sense of the key moments of continuity and discontinuity, if we are to build a new international. This will only be possible through theoretical work, but even more importantly, through the analysis of contemporary capitalism and the ongoing class struggle.


2. Which chances do you see for the ongoing democratization of art? Is it possible to break out of the framework of market hierarchy and exclusive global representation?

The future of contemporary art and its strategies and forms is connected to changing the social context. It seems to me that there are no grounds for singling out the art-system for its cynicism and corruption, even if such accusations may be just. After all, one can apply this form of interrelation to capitalism as a whole. As mass movements grow, updating international solidarity in the face of Neo-Liberalism’s onslaught, they can supply new meanings to the figure of the artist.


3. How important is it today to stop the conveyors of big events, opting instead for internationalist work on location? 

The real meaning of international events can only be recognized through their immersion in local situations.


See the Russian version of the site for the author’s complete answer.