Fascism!

[padraig (u.s.)]

I think any society that could get it's shit together enough to do away with money entirely and still feed/clothe/house/educate everyone would be the polar opposite of "anarchy".

I think perhaps you're a bit confused?

when people use the term "anarchy" they generally mean one of two things - firstly, chaos in the absence of a state, e.g. Somalia. this is how it is used in the media, popular culture etc. & how you're using it, I presume.

the second is a functional society based upon voluntary participation in the absence of a state, or some similar definition (tho it's often hard to pin down as the concept of "anarchism" is by definition opposed to sweeping ideologies). there is nothing, specifically, about abolition of $, which is a whole other can of worms - I'm not sure where you picked that up? tbh I'm quite skeptical of this as well, based IMO on an unrealistic view of human nature - that people will choose cooperation over screwing each other to get ahead - tho there is (arguably) a fair bit of evidence for it in tribal pre-agricultural peoples.

anyway unlike communists I'm not overly attached to any particular term but I do think that we should be clear about what is being meant when it's used.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Not sure i buy this. I think there must be any number of lines that are easier to take if someone was aiming for a kind of cynical pseudo-stance. Doesn't seem that safe or risk free to me, although yeah it's a job for some I suppose.

really? what is the risk? you can be a tenured professor, write your books, go to your conferences, live in relative comfort in the midst of what you're critiquing. I'll tell you why there's no risk - b/c you pose absolutely no threat to anyone. if no one cares enough to repress or even try to censor you then clearly there is very little risk involved. I'm not saying that I or anyone else is above this, merely that I have no illusions about it.

also I didn't say anything about cynicism. tho I'm sure many post-Cold War communists must be cynical. anyway Zizek strikes me as much more the cynical type. Badiou stinks of the purity & self-righteousness of a True Believer.

 

[nomadthethird]

What a great pro-communism argument: "anyone who questions the communist hypothesis is just a cynic."

Quite a solid, convincing bit of political rhetoric, that.

I also like the idea that the only "pseudo" stances are cynical.

I can think of all kinds of very sincere pseudo-stances.

 

[nomadthethird]

really? what is the risk? you can be a tenured professor, write your books, go to your conferences, live in relative comfort in the midst of what you're critiquing. I'll tell you why there's no risk - b/c you pose absolutely no threat to anyone. if no one cares enough to repress or even try to censor you then clearly there is very little risk involved. I'm not saying that I or anyone else is above this, merely that I have no illusions about it.

also I didn't say anything about cynicism. tho I'm sure many post-Cold War communists must be cynical. anyway Zizek strikes me as much more the cynical type. Badiou stinks of the purity & self-righteousness of a True Believer.

Excellent post.

 

[nomadthethird]

but it's quite a Pyrrhic victory isn't it, given that capitalism & consumerism blah blah blah keeps staggering on either way. also, eviscerating communists is shooting fish in a barrel, no honor in it really, more depressing than anything else. tho I appreciate the vote of confidence.

True enough. But still, at least your posts weren't full of epic logical and rhetorical fail. That is worth a win.

 

[nomadthethird]

I think any society that could get it's shit together enough to do away with money entirely and still feed/clothe/house/educate everyone would be the polar opposite of "anarchy".

Yeah, anarchists are mostly just anti-state and believe in "self-rule" as the ideal situation counter to "dominating classes"...not really in "chaos"...

 

[nomadthethird]

edit edit: i think we need each other. and we can name it whatever you like!

Please, speak for yourself. I do not need people like you; you're the last thing I want to be associated with.

 

[mistadubalina]

just curious but whats the female equivalent of machismo/macho and is there an equivalent theory to communism or fascism that was defined by a woman ?

 

[nomadthethird]

Butch? Straights call a women who is macho "butch"...But among us queers, "butch" applies to anybody, not just women.

There were a lot of female communists and anarchists. I like Emma Goldman.

 

[massrock]

really? what is the risk? you can be a tenured professor, write your books, go to your conferences, live in relative comfort in the midst of what you're critiquing.

Sure you can do those things, don't think being a communist makes them any easier does it. As for risk it obviously risks encountering a good deal of prejudice at the very least. Certainly as compared to say, not being a communist.

I'll tell you why there's no risk - b/c you pose absolutely no threat to anyone. if no one cares enough to repress or even try to censor you then clearly there is very little risk involved.

As an academic or as a communist?

In France it might be an acceptable position. Not exactly welcomed with open arms in most places though. How about the tolerant freedom loving USA of the 1980s, or even now?

I'm not saying that I or anyone else is above this, merely that I have no illusions about it.

Oh well done you, have a cookie.

Badiou stinks of the purity & self-righteousness of a True Believer.

The great crime, to believe in something. But to believe in what?

I don't know, this might be the case but where do you get this impression of Badiou? That's not an idle question, I'd like to know - I'd need to read more myself really but I'm a little surprised at some of the readings and reactions I see here and am not sure what they are based on.

Clearly you have beliefs of your own or you would have nothing to so vehemently weigh against your impressions of Badiou's, if that isn't horribly mixing metaphors.

 

[mistadubalina]

wow...an angry lesbian intellectual reformed drug addict. you are in a bad way

butch still seems like applying a male characteristic to a female.

so how much of your opinion is coloured by the fact you're...

a) lesbian

b) a woman

c)american

d) these theories were made up by men

...like are you sure theres not a hint of penis envy involved ?

 

[massrock]

What a great pro-communism argument: "anyone who questions the communist hypothesis is just a cynic."

Quite a solid, convincing bit of political rhetoric, that.

I also like the idea that the only "pseudo" stances are cynical.

I can think of all kinds of very sincere pseudo-stances.

Not sure where you got any of that from.

 

[massrock]

Anyway here's a proposition that might be more on topic.

Fascism is wrong because it says there are two kinds of people.

Communism is wrong because it says there is only one.

Discuss.

 

[mistadubalina]

Fascism is wrong because it says there are two kinds of people.

male and female ?

 

[nomadthethird]

Not sure where you got any of that from.

I got it directly from your post.

Nobody said there's anything wrong with believing something. But to expect the rest of the world to uncritically accept as an article of faith a very serious political proposition--without being able to explain the when, what, where, and how of making this proposition a reality, or even making any attempt to do so--is a little ridiculous.

I'd love for a society to exist that was completely free from a "dominating class", but I do not think Badiou even begins to come close to describing how this will happen or how we can hope to achieve this. He just insists that it will be done. And then classes anyone who is skeptical into a category with the "rat man" (what a lovely image, not at all anti-semitic).

Faith has never been a "philosophical" principle that I take at face value, or believe in for its own sake. Don't expect me or anyone else to take your "faith" as the measure of the worth of your political convictions.

I don't think simply deferring to religious faith, as if faith makes religious propositions above skepticism or criticism, is in order. Nor do I think deferring to "philosophical" faith is some kind of "stance". It's a sentiment.

 

[nomadthethird]

How about the tolerant freedom loving USA of the 1980s, or even now?

Nobody in the U.S. gives a flying fuck about communism, except in the universities. That's in my experience only, of course--Padraig has probably met more prole communists in the U.S. than I have.

 

[nomadthethird]

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? .

Yes, it is! The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

If you're going to claim that the "communist" "hypothesis" is the One True Path, and that everyone who disagrees is a "disgusting" follower of the rat man, you'd better be able to defend that position to the hilt against criticism. You'd better have some schematics handy. You'd better be able to describe how the communist hypothesis will avoid the historical mistakes made by communists.

I'm not impressed by faith without reason.

"Beliefs are cheap, everyone has one. I'm surprised they don't sell them at Wal-Mart."

 

[massrock]

I got it directly from your post.

You seem to have rather thoroughly misread that exchange.

 

[massrock]

Nobody said there's anything wrong with believing something. But to expect the rest of the world to uncritically accept as an article of faith a very serious political proposition--without being able to explain the when, what, where, and how of making this proposition a reality, or even making any attempt to do so--is a little ridiculous.

I doubt Alain Badiou expects everyone to accept what he says uncritically.

But what is this article of faith, what is the political proposition, do you know?

Are you sure you are not making of criticism of someone for not doing something they are not claiming to be doing in the first place? I think you have to do better than criticise the systems analyst for not building the application, or the plumber for not cooking your dinner.

 

[massrock]

I'd love for a society to exist that was completely free from a "dominating class", but I do not think Badiou even begins to come close to describing how this will happen or how we can hope to achieve this. He just insists that it will be done. And then classes anyone who is skeptical into a category with the "rat man" (what a lovely image, not at all anti-semitic).

I think he insists that it can be done.

It's a curious image, the 'rat man', I wasn't sure what he meant by that. Doesn't he use it to refer to Sarkozy?