Fascism!

[crackerjack]

You think they just want to sit around and have a good old moan / few real ales?

Well of course that's true, and true of many other alignments at that, but it's also a moot point in that such a person would arguably only then be nominally a communist.

I mean we can all sit in our armchairs and criticise armchair politicos but talking is doing something and revolution would presumably be at least the stated aim of most communists, whether they really mean it or not. Of course lots of people get involved in causes for the social scene or to feel important or to get laid or just to try and make sense of things, or whatever. Lots of people probably don't even know or examine their own motivations when it comes down to it.

Hazarding a guess here, but I reckon Vimothy wasn't saying anything about 'armchair communists' and the difference between talk and action; rather that for some, communism is a romantic posture and the actual prospect of it would be horrifying. But like I say, that's a guess.

 

[vimothy]

Moreover, the distinction between nominal and real or true is not to be trusted.

 

[scottdisco]

give 'im some Brains

Moreover, the distinction between nominal and real or true is not to be trusted.

you can usually tell the difference between real ale and smoothflow, can't you Vim?

 

[vimothy]

Depends on how many ales we're talking about here!

 

[swears]

incidentally idk about London or Brum (sorry to focus on the three largest cities), but i know the BNP were on Market Street the other weekend, which is in the city centre there, and the UK's busiest provincial high street.
they got seen off, but they will be back.

Hmmm... they were in Liverpool city centre with a little stall outside the Boots Chemist and a huge English flag on St George's day. Couple of the fellas looked like beardy old professors, couple like nerdy office workers, no bootboys or anything. Nobody was really paying much attention from what I can tell, I feel a bit guilty for not telling them to fuck off, but that would've made them feel more important than anything. Maybe if I'd had a couple of pints, haha. I'm always tempted to tell all the evangelical Christians with megaphones to shut up, obvs this was even worse. I might go down and throw some eggs with a couple of mates next time.

 

[scottdisco]

stop me if you've heard this before

"two skinny Mancs walk into a bar.."

 

[scottdisco]

I feel a bit guilty for not telling them to fuck off, but that would've made them feel more important than anything.

cheers Swears, interesting info that.
i think you are right on the self-importance tip, although who knows. a conversation with them is surely wasting time for both parties.

what of any other regional large British city centres, i wonder if anyone knows much?

when a much younger man i remember bellowing Allahu Akbar in the direction of a ranting Christian in one city centre (!)

 

[STN]

cheers Swears, interesting info that.
i think you are right on the self-importance tip, although who knows. a conversation with them is surely wasting time for both parties.

what of any other regional large British city centres, i wonder if anyone knows much?

I think that, in Bristol, they are widely considered bell-ends.

 

[matt b]

cheers Swears, interesting info that.
i think you are right on the self-importance tip, although who knows. a conversation with them is surely wasting time for both parties.

AFA in newcastle, just used to use a tin of beans in a plastic bag (with reciept) on the fuckers.

 

[massrock]

for some, communism is a romantic posture and the actual prospect of it would be horrifying.

For some, I don't doubt it. There's always going to be some people who are unable or unwilling to extrapolate or project the results of their notions into reality, and those who just don't know what they believe or would truly commit to. That can be observed in the fans of all kinds of ideas, you know? To be fair I think you'd have to take it up with individuals, unless one has decided that most are full of crap and that's actually what a communist is.

As always what people mean by and expect from the application of certain ideas varies quite a bit.

Anyway it was basically the irony of the idea that most communists believe that capitalism is unstoppable that amused me, really. It might be true but doesn't it really point to the question of who defines what a communist, or whatever, is - the person themselves, an observer such as you or I, or a strict definition elsewhere?

Presumably one useful definition of a communist would be someone who is in favour of communism. By that measure if someone claimed to be a communist but in truth would be horrified by the reality of it then they are not really a very committed communist, you could say.

 

[massrock]

By the way I don't know anything at all about Badiou but I'm surprised at the hostility to the use of particular 'jargon' with respect to Badiou's ideas here. If I don't understand the terminology that someone is using I can go and try to find out what it means. Maybe the chap who brought it up could explain it better but sometimes the meanings of these terms are embedded in the context in which they are employed in the original texts so it's not really sensible to try and define them in a few lines. If it was there probably wouldn't be any need for the use of the jargon in the first place.

 

[vimothy]

I don't think it's actually the case that many (if any) of the other commenters here don't know what it means.

You raise some interesting points, massrock. While I wouldn't claim that the belief that capitalism is unstoppable defines a communist, it does seem to be an observable characteristic or regularity of modern communism. For instance, the notion that it is essential to maintian the possiblity (but not the reality) of communism and communist praxis in the face of the apparent victory of capitalism and liberalism doesn't seem to far away from saying, "but we can still hope -- can't we?"

 

[massrock]

I don't think it's actually the case that many (if any) of the other commenters here don't know what it means.

OK. Just reading the end of the thread it looked like there was some jumping to premature conclusions going on. I mean I didn't see much evidence or justification for some of what was being read into a few posts, but maybe I'm not qualified to say. Maybe Badiou is a very bad man.

For instance, the notion that it is essential to maintian the possiblity (but not the reality) of communism and communist praxis in the face of the apparent victory of capitalism and liberalism doesn't seem to far away from saying, "but we can still hope -- can't we?"

Indeed, but doesn't this basically equate to the keeping open of the possibility of possibilities? Communism here being used as a place-holder and rallying point, an article of pragmatic faith? Perhaps it's not such a good one given track records and that, but I guess this is where the clear distinction between the ideal and the unfortunate historical reality is most certainly being drawn. I mean on that level there is surely a huge difference between communism and fascism, whether it's a directly applicable one or not.

I wonder, is it the idea / belief that it is the initial motivation for communism that must not be lost simply because of past errors and tragedies because to do so would be the final capitulation on behalf of all possibility? I don't know, just asking the communists in the house I suppose.

 

[scottdisco]

I wonder, is it the idea / belief that it is the initial motivation for communism that must not be lost simply because of past errors and tragedies because to do so would be the final capitulation on behalf of all possibility?

hitting the nail on the head for me.

goes w'out saying i agree wrt Vimothy's clarification at 876.

 

[scottdisco]

You mean this?
The problem with those who perceive every comparison between the holocaust and other concentration camps and mass political crimes as an inadmissible relativization of the holocaust, is that they miss the point and display their own doubt: yes, the holocaust WAS unique, but the only way to establish this uniqueness is to compare it with other similar phenomena and thus demonstrate the limit of this comparison. If one does not risk this comparison, of one prohibits it, one gets caught in the Wittgensteinian paradox of prohibiting to speak about that about which we cannot speak: if we stick to the prohibition of the comparison, the gnawing suspicion emerges that, if we were to be allowed to compare the holocaust with other similar crimes, it would be deprived of its uniqueness...

this is Nomad re-upping something at post no.220, and at 222

I don't think his conclusion is wrong, but I question its pertinence with regards to the rhetorical fireworks which came before it. He ends with, what I think, a true declaration. But what he has persuaded you to pick up along the way?

you two (and Slothrop and Poetix and Tea) were well getting into this, i've just spent a while re-skimming the first twenty pages or so, quality stuff

also:

Žižek
From the 1970s onwards, a new figure of the “spirit of capitalism” emerged: capitalism abandoned the hierarchical Fordist structure of the production process and developed a network-based form of organisation founded on employee initiative and autonomy in the workplace. Instead of the hierarchical chain of command, we get networks with a multitude of participants, organising work in the form of teams or projects, intent on customer satisfaction. In this way, capitalism is transformed into an egalitarian project

p.d.

 

[vimothy]

Indeed, but doesn't this basically equate to the keeping open of the possibility of possibilities?

But it's a very weak claim to make.

And I'm not sure that you can divorce the ideal of communism from its occurrence. At the very least, I would imagine that a materialist would have something to say about that.

 

[3 Body No Problem]

But it's a very weak claim to make.

And I'm not sure that you can divorce the ideal of communism from its occurrence. At the very least, I would imagine that a materialist would have something to say about that.

It's not just a weak claim to make (which is also made by various other organisations), but it also quote incompatible with the concrete political actions taken by communist parties around the world, past, present, and -- most likely -- future. It's also unclear why it's an interesting statement: does anybody seriously doubt it?

 

[massrock]

But it's a very weak claim to make.

What claim do you mean here? I don't think that can be agreed, but is it really a claim that is being made so much as a stance being taken?

In any case does apparently weak really equal weak, or wrong? Isn't it precisely the fascist who believes they can identify the weak, and the weak with the manifestly wrong?

Is it weak to fight for something or against something against the apparent odds?

And I'm not sure that you can divorce the ideal of communism from its occurrence. At the very least, I would imagine that a materialist would have something to say about that.

I'd say the spirit in which communism was formulated is clearly very much at odds with the historical manifestations of communism.

If you think that people clinging to communism as an idea should come up with something else, yes maybe they should, but I think part of the point they would make is that what is being maintained is the fact that there can be a something else, to them that's what it is.

Maybe you think it is the word that is hopelessly tainted, but isn't it then an objection to how the word is interpreted? And isn't it precisely a program of rehabilitation that modern commies are trying to enact in all this?

 

[josef k.]

If you think that people clinging to communism as an idea should come up with something else...

Communism as an idea is only own definition - Badiou's Platonic definition - of what Communism is about. The history of Marxism is crowded with an alternative models. In the 1844 Manuscripts, Marx talks about communism in an Aristotelian vein in the context of a magisterial development of the senses. Elsewhere he describes Communism as nothing but "the real movement" of histor

EDIT: That should read: "Communism as an idea is only ONE definition..."

 

[massrock]

Thanks, you know maybe Badiou fans and contemporary communists are deluded or misguided but I prefer to approach ideas based on the spirit in which they are offered rather than dismiss them as murderous because of some other event with a similar name. If people have ideas and hope we'd be foolish not to ask them about it or at least pay some attention.