to explain further:
why Stalin was a sack of shit = why parliamentary-capitalism is a sack of shit (both are a finitude, both contain the "not included subject"): lets take the notion of human rights, for example.. human rights is inherently linked to the power of the nation state, it fails to provide rights for those that are excluded, or persecuted by the nation states. Ranciere: '‘Either the rights of the citizen are the rights of man – but the rights of man are the rights of the unpoliticized person; they are the rights of those who have no rights, which amounts to nothing – or the rights of man are the rights of the citizen, the rights attached to the fact of being a citizen. This means that they are the rights of those who have rights, which amounts to a tautology.’' Both Ranciere and Badiou aim at creating a new form of political agency. This stance on agency needs to present a theory of political agency that is able to ground agency on a firm footing that counters the power-structures at work, yet that at the same can accommodate something radically new in order to escape elevating this grounding of agency into a fundamentalism. Badiou and Rancière both formulate a theory that escapes these pitfalls by applying the conceptual tool of ‘belonging but not included’. This stance leads to a new rereading of human rights, and a re-definition of doing politics.
"A political moment is then a moment in which an included subject that does not belong acts on the current situation."
why Stalin was a sack of shit = why parliamentary-capitalism is a sack of shit (both are a finitude, both contain the "not included subject"): lets take the notion of human rights, for example.. human rights is inherently linked to the power of the nation state, it fails to provide rights for those that are excluded, or persecuted by the nation states. Ranciere: '‘Either the rights of the citizen are the rights of man – but the rights of man are the rights of the unpoliticized person; they are the rights of those who have no rights, which amounts to nothing – or the rights of man are the rights of the citizen, the rights attached to the fact of being a citizen. This means that they are the rights of those who have rights, which amounts to a tautology.’' Both Ranciere and Badiou aim at creating a new form of political agency. This stance on agency needs to present a theory of political agency that is able to ground agency on a firm footing that counters the power-structures at work, yet that at the same can accommodate something radically new in order to escape elevating this grounding of agency into a fundamentalism. Badiou and Rancière both formulate a theory that escapes these pitfalls by applying the conceptual tool of ‘belonging but not included’. This stance leads to a new rereading of human rights, and a re-definition of doing politics.
"A political moment is then a moment in which an included subject that does not belong acts on the current situation."