Fascism!

[nomadthethird]

concerning the "pure ideal" (in his own words):

“‘The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about it. In this case, the rat-man is right, as is, by the way, the case with some ex-communists who are either avid of their rents or who lost courage. However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself.’”

“One should be careful not to read these lines in a Kantian way, conceiving Communism as a “regulative Idea,” thereby resuscitating the specter of “ethical socialism” with equality as its a priori norm-axiom… One should maintain the precise reference to a set of social antagonism(s) which generate the need for Communism – the good old Marx’s notion of Communism not as an ideal, but as a movement which reacts to actual social antagonisms, is still fully relevant. If we conceive Communism as an “eternal Idea,” this implies that the situation which generates it is no less eternal, that the antagonism to which Communism reacts will always be here – and from here, it is only one step to a “deconstructive” reading of Communism as a dream of presence, of abolishing all alienating re-presentation, a dream which thrives on its own impossibility .”

Uuuuuggghhh.

Eternal?

"Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher."

Speak for yourself.

 

[nomadthethird]

I think that is a little unfair. It is good Nikbee is here, and I hope he sticks around; he raises important questions.

I don't think he should leave. I just found it hard to take someone seriously whose idea of a counterargument is "are you crazy???!?!?!?"...

 

[nomadthethird]

I'm sure droid is taking the piss.

I'm sure I was, too.

But seriously, come on, how seriously can I take someone who is trying to say communism is the One True Path when they're a refugee from fascism in the U.S.?

The ironies here are just too hard to resist.

 

[josef k.]

Rather than ask what communism is, it might be better to ask what it produces (conferences; tyrannies; etc), and why.

That is an excellent question... though problematic, since the definition of communism is contested.

It seems to be necessary to ask first of all: "What does the use of the word 'communism' produce?"

I like the idea of a communism of silence, communism as related to communication.

A communism that will never any longer know who it is, where it is going, where it has come from, where it has come from...

 

[nikbee]

I'm sure I was, too.

But seriously, come on, how seriously can I take someone who is trying to say communism is the One True Path when they're a refugee from fascism in the U.S.?

The ironies here are just too hard to resist.

i was 'drinking the piss' as well

 

[nomadthethird]

It seems to be necessary to ask first of all: "What does the use of the word 'communism' produce?"

White noise....?

Red noise.

 

[nomadthethird]

i was 'drinking the piss' as well

Nikbee likes to play stop and go?

 

[josef k.]

White noise turns into red lips.

 

[nikbee]

That is an excellent question... though problematic, since the definition of communism is contested.

It seems to be necessary to ask first of all: "What does the use of the word 'communism' produce?"

I like the idea of a communism of silence, communism as related to communication.

A communism that will never any longer know who it is, where it is going, where it has come from, where it has come from...

i think this is fair.

i would say, basically, that communism insists 'we'. i am for this.

 

[nikbee]

Nikbee likes to play stop and go?

whats stop and go? im scared to google it.

edit: happy may day

 

[scottdisco]

intravaginal sensory appreciation

whats stop and go? im scared to google it.

i doubt it's related to the Ireland/UK shampoo product Wash 'N' Go, at any rate.

 

[Tentative Andy]

“‘The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about it."

I get the impression this is supposed to be somewhat provocative, but still, I cannot understand what reasoning has lead to him making this claim. If Nikbee or anyone else could explain this to me I would be more than grateful.

 

[matt b]

Uuuuuggghhh.

Eternal?

"Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher."

Speak for yourself.

Nikbee has obviously never read Bakinin's criticisms of Communism/ Marx at the IWMA, for starters.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

i would say, basically, that communism insists 'we'. i am for this.

except that this is not true at all.

perhaps it insists on some abstract "we"...

but in reality it is always the Party & its elites, in some cases a single man & those who move in his orbit, in other cases small cliques of Party elites, either way it's the same. in fact anyone who has insisted on "we" (the Left SRs & anarchists, the Mahknovists, the Kronstadt sailors, the anarchists again in Spain, the workers & students of May 1968 who were sold out by the Stalinist trade union leadership, and on, and on...) has been ruthlessly crushed. Communism has always been for the elites & the secret police apparatus they used to maintain themselves...this is in reality you understand, not some bullshit mythical "we"...

a big problem is that the "we" is unmanageable beyond a few hundred people (& even that maybe stretching it). when there are too many people for everyone to know each other face-to-face then the "we" is unmanageable. of course, that abstract "we" would be harmless had it not lead, time & time again, to bureaucratic institutions erecting gulags & slaughterhouses & monuments of bleached skulls in the service of "we"...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Rather than ask what communism is, it might be better to ask what it produces (conferences; tyrannies; etc), and why.

I think you were right, Vimothy, when you said the only thing that communists truly believe in, their only real article of faith, is Capitalism. and I think they believe in it more strongly than capitalists, who tend not to be concerned so much with ideology, which after all can get in the way of doing business.

“‘The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action...However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself.’”

this is just a fancy way of saying that Communism-As-Idea could work if only we just tweak the right way. Surely it couldn't just be that the Idea itself is a bad one.

anyway I wonder how much Badiou has ever done "in the field of collective action". not that it matters either way re: his arguments.

also, one thing I always find tremendously ironic about academics who espouse communism (also "anti-state communists") is that I've very little doubt most of them would be purged very quickly under a Communist regime, those Party leader types not being big fans of idealists or thinkers...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

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.

but it's not an event "of a similar name". it's the same event, all this toss about betrayals aside. you can't call yourself a communist & then say "oh, but you can't say associate me with those other communists & the things they did in the name of communism".

when people espouse ides that have been proven, not through slick theoretical tricks but in practice, again & again & again no matter what the original spirit was, to be not only wrong but disastrous & murderous, then I don't really care what spirit they're being offered in. especially as Communism is nothing if not an agonizing history of good intentions gone awry.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

ah hell, well I'm here talking to myself I will say one thing for Communism; I don't think all its ironies have ever produced a single moment as unbelievably surreal as Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

so, there's that.

 

[Mr. Tea]

ah hell, well I'm here talking to myself I will say one thing for Communism; I don't think all its ironies have ever produced a single moment as unbelievably surreal as Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

so, there's that.

As a '00s follow-up to that, can I add Tony Blair's role as Middle East 'Peace Commissioner' or whatever the hell he's called now?

For my part I can't quite believe anyone called Kissinger could be anything but an adorable sweetheart.

 

[massrock]

OK, Badiou and communism, very quickly.

1. It seems that his definition of the communist hypothesis, which a lot of this hinges on, is that 'the subordination of labour to a dominant class...is not inevitable; it can be overcome. The communist hypothesis is that a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour.' That's it, I think it would be a mistake to read any more into it than that.

2. His idea about how that might be achieved is that it involves at the basic a level a kind of diffuse shift in perception away from a certain kind of division. What this 'division' is and how he explains it probably deserves a little further reading, but this is the sense in which he compares it to the expression 'cultural revolution'. This is then the radical underpinning of a process whereby massive inequality of wealth distribution is largely eliminated and the existence of a coercive state will no longer appear a necessity.

I think he is very clear that this must have and need have nothing whatsoever to do with the imposition of any party or state at all, temporary or otherwise. Indeed he would seem to agree with nomad here in the sense that the means is the end.

 

[massrock]

I think the question for me with that then is whether you agree with that particular way of identifying and framing 'the' problem and it's suggested solutions.

Incidentally is it entirely appropriate that this discussion be taking place on the Fascism! thread? I'm not sure how it ended up here but there are many communism and Badiou threads.