Fascism!

[massrock]

What I don't get is why Badiou bothers with the word communist at all

it's not just that he identifies as a communist tho - he also associates with other people & theorists who call themselves communists, advocates communism (whatever he means by that) as a public figure, etc. etc.

To be a bit more charitable I suppose it is the case that he talks about communism when referencing communism, if you see what I mean. And he associates with communists because they share some common premises, antagonisms and goals. The idea is more fundamental though. It is called the communist hypothesis, which is actually not at all the same as saying 'communism', and let's remember that in the French it is the hypothesis that takes precedence, I think that might be significant.

 

[vimothy]

derives his philosophy from Platonic principles...

This was my suspicion.

 

[nomadthethird]

What I don't get is why Badiou bothers with the word communist at all, it seems kind of bloody minded and idiotic when not only is it so readily open to misinterpretation but it's also not really what he's talking about anyway. Weird. Maybe someone could explain that to me.

I've been telling the blog Badiou people that it doesn't make sense, if he really believes what he's saying, he needs a new name for whatever-it-is-he's-calling-communism. Because what you've outlined in three points back there is NOT communism. It's a watered down quasi-Marxism.

Marxism is not always equal to communism.

I'm all for Marxian approaches but not Marxist "solutions", because those always end up being regimes.

Matt b is right, Bakunin already tore some of Badiou's arguments to shreds a loong, looong time ago.

 

[nomadthethird]

"We" is not a magic word...

Neither is "collective"...

Nikbee has been on here talking about how bad fascists are for wanting a return to "nation" "family" and such, but I remain unconvinced that the "collective" isn't just another kind of nation-family.

And no one has answered the question of how large-scale change sustains itself without a State in the driver's seat.

As we've seen, states don't wither away because you keep saying the magic words: "equal" "emancipation" "collective" "we"

 

[nomadthethird]

“‘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.

Andy, this is exactly what I can't stand about Badiou. Not even really his formulations (predictably wrapped up in forms and "eternals" and what have you), but his insistence that philosophy is nothing more than a vehicle for (new?) types of morality. Philosophy = a moral discourse.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[nomadthethird]

Btw, Padraig wins this thread by a landslide.

 

[massrock]

I've been telling the blog Badiou people that it doesn't make sense, if he really believes what he's saying, he needs a new name for whatever-it-is-he's-calling-communism. Because what you've outlined in three points back there is NOT communism. It's a watered down quasi-Marxism.

Does he identify as 'a communist' in any kind of unqualified way though? From what I can see he talks about the communist hypothesis but that's not the same.

 

[massrock]

if you raise practical questions about how to enact the "idea" of communism without the utilization of authoritarian praxes, you are shouted down and called all manner of bad names the most obvious and common of which is "neo-liberal".

And no one has answered the question of how large-scale change sustains itself without a State in the driver's seat.

Of course it is right to ask questions about practicalities but is it always the job or scope of theory to immediately concern itself with how an idea might be implemented or applied? I'm sure you are aware it is absolutely not. Not saying Badiou doesn't speak to this but as a criticism of thought it's underhand really I think.

 

[massrock]

As we've seen, states don't wither away because you keep saying the magic words: "equal" "emancipation" "collective" "we"

I don't see Badiou's idea as being about those things though really, at least not in the first instance.

Badiou's idea of revolution seems to have more to do with relationships and perception, a revolution of the mind.

 

[massrock]

“‘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.

Andy, this is exactly what I can't stand about Badiou. Not even really his formulations (predictably wrapped up in forms and "eternals" and what have you), but his insistence that philosophy is nothing more than a vehicle for (new?) types of morality. Philosophy = a moral discourse.

I couldn't disagree more.

That's not what's being said there though is it?

He's saying that for him without what he calls the communist hypothesis, idea that [a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour], there is nothing worth doing 'in the field of collective action'. I mean it's rhetoric concerning what he sees as the crucial point but so what? I guess he's saying if we can't address this then what's the point of talking about it.

 

[nomadthethird]

That's not what's being said there though is it?

He's saying that for him without what he calls the communist hypothesis, idea that [a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour], there is nothing worth doing 'in the field of collective action'. I mean it's rhetoric concerning what he sees as the crucial point but so what? I guess he's saying if we can't address this then what's the point of talking about it.

No, he very literally states that there is no other reason to philosophize except in reference to the "communist hypothesis"...bullshit.

Also, for Nikbee: humans are not alone capable of abstract thought

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=animals+abstract+thought&aq=f&oq=

 

[massrock]

but it's not an event "of a similar name".

I think it was a misunderstanding of way in which the expression 'cultural revolution' was being referenced, on this thread I mean.

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.

Or that 'the subordination of labour to a dominant class is not inevitable'.

 

[nomadthethird]

Does he identify as 'a communist' in any kind of unqualified way though? From what I can see he talks about the communist hypothesis but that's not the same.

This is a bunch of absolute garbage logic.

You do realize that we do not get to pick the historical associations different words have?

I don't believe in "pure" or "true" political "hypotheses"...so right there, out of the gate, I have no interest in following through on the rest of this "argument"...

 

[nomadthethird]

I don't see Badiou's idea as being about those things though really, at least not in the first instance.

Badiou's idea of revolution seems to have more to do with relationships and perception, a revolution of the mind.

Ummm...

References?

 

[nomadthethird]

I don't see Badiou's idea as being about those things though really, at least not in the first instance.

Badiou's idea of revolution seems to have more to do with relationships and perception, a revolution of the mind.

Btw, I wasn't talking about Badiou there, I was talking about Marxism.

 

[nomadthethird]

I think it was a misunderstanding of way in which the expression 'cultural revolution' was being referenced, on this thread I mean.

Or that 'the subordination of labour to a dominant class is not inevitable'.

If it isn't, then why do they keep propounding the same nonsense about humanity's "collective" family??

Collectives form states/Parties which don't equal emancipation from a dominant class.

 

[massrock]

No, he very literally states that there is no other reason to philosophize except in reference to the "communist hypothesis"...bullshit.

Where does he literally do this?

There I read - 'in the historical and political becoming' and 'in the field of collective action'.

But so what, it's obviously rhetoric, strident but this is where is he is drawing the line. You get down with the fact that we can address the problem identified in his hypothesis or you don't bother, you go listen to someone else or whatever, of course you do. Why should that stop someone making a strong statement?

This is a bunch of absolute garbage logic.

You do realize that we do not get to pick the historical associations different words have?

No I'm asking the question, does this guy say 'i am a communist', or does he talk about what he calls 'the communist hypothesis' - something he does quite clearly define.

It seems to me that 'the communist hypothesis' is not 'communism'. Why should that be difficult? How about 'rubber' is not 'a car tire'?

 

[nomadthethird]

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

Bull. Shit.

 

[nomadthethird]

Where does he literally do this?

There I read - 'in the historical and political becoming' and 'in the field of collective action'.

But so what, it's obviously rhetoric, strident but this is where is he is drawing the line. You get down with the fact that we can address the problem identified in his hypothesis or you don't bother, you go listen to someone else or whatever, of course you do. Why should that stop someone making a strong statement?

No I'm asking the question, does this guy say 'i am a communist', or does he talk about what he calls 'the communist hypothesis' - something he does quite clearly define.

It seems to me that 'the communist hypothesis' is not 'communism'. Why should that be difficult? How about 'rubber' is not 'a car tire'?

Did I say it should stop anyone from making statements? He can make any strident claims he likes, and I can call them out for bullshit each and every time.

There is no such thing as political hypotheses that are somehow transcendent of historical realities. "Hypotheses" don't transcend history. A political hypothesis IS a historical entity. You cannot separate a "pure" communist hypothesis from the history of the word, and the political reality, of "communism."

Why retain the word communism at all, if the "communist hypothesis" has nothing to do with communism? Why keep beating Mao's drum? Why identify yourself as a communist in public, over and over and over?

It's empty rhetoric.

 

[nomadthethird]

Some people seriously need to learn symbolic logic.