Fascism!

[massrock]

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.

What do you mean by nobody gives a flying fuck?

Nobody finds it worthwhile, or nobody is bothered by it?

Cos I can tell that it was way different in the cold war years and it looks to me like a deep suspicion and loathing of the c word is alive and well in the US.

 

[massrock]

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!

Well it isn't is it. Not always, that's silly.

But in any case is Badiou actually proposing how something specific may be achieved or is he more interested in framing a problem or the means by which a solution might arrive? Isn't that what he says?

Or maybe solutions are proposed and you just haven't read them, or you haven't grasped their meaning, or you simply disagree that they will work. This is a different criticism however.

 

[massrock]

What is the communist hypothesis? In its generic sense, given in its canonic Manifesto, ‘communist’ means, first, that the logic of class—the fundamental subordination of labour to a dominant class, the arrangement that has persisted since Antiquity—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. The private appropriation of massive fortunes and their transmission by inheritance will disappear. The existence of a coercive state, separate from civil society, will no longer appear a necessity: a long process of reorganization based on a free association of producers will see it withering away.

‘Communism’ as such denotes only this very general set of intellectual representations. It is what Kant called an Idea, with a regulatory function, rather than a programme. It is foolish to call such communist principles utopian; in the sense that I have defined them here they are intellectual patterns, always actualized in a different fashion. As a pure Idea of equality, the communist hypothesis has no doubt existed since the beginnings of the state. As soon as mass action opposes state coercion in the name of egalitarian justice, rudiments or fragments of the hypothesis start to appear. Popular revolts—the slaves led by Spartacus, the peasants led by Müntzer—might be identified as practical examples of this ‘communist invariant’. With the French Revolution, the communist hypothesis then inaugurates the epoch of political modernity.

...

...after the negative experiences of the ‘socialist’ states and the ambiguous lessons of the Cultural Revolution and May 68, our task is to bring the communist hypothesis into existence in another mode, to help it emerge within new forms of political experience. This is why our work is so complicated, so experimental. We must focus on its conditions of existence, rather than just improving its methods. We need to re-install the communist hypothesis—the proposition that the subordination of labour to the dominant class is not inevitable—within the ideological sphere.

What might this involve? Experimentally, we might conceive of finding a point that would stand outside the temporality of the dominant order and what Lacan once called ‘the service of wealth’. Any point, so long as it is in formal opposition to such service, and offers the discipline of a universal truth. One such might be the declaration: ‘There is only one world’. What would this imply? Contemporary capitalism boasts, of course, that it has created a global order; its opponents too speak of ‘alter-globalization’. Essentially, they propose a definition of politics as a practical means of moving from the world as it is to the world as we would wish it to be. But does a single world of human subjects exist? The ‘one world’ of globalization is solely one of things—objects for sale—and monetary signs: the world market as foreseen by Marx. The overwhelming majority of the population have at best restricted access to this world. They are locked out, often literally so.

http://www.newleftreview.org/?view=2705

 

[massrock]

I still know nothing about Badiou and probably disagree with lots of what he says but I don't think he's a fascist.

 

[scottdisco]

awww nomad...i luv it when you talk dirty!

...what are you wearing ?

mistadubalina you filthy Kiwi!

you have a blog!

etc.

as a man with a brain, has Badiou - past the age of, say, 16 - ever made any weak, uncritical statements about Maoism?

stupid question but i just want to know.

has Badiou ever been asked about Mao and ever given a fairly kind response?

someone please tell me.

i would also like to thank Matt for what he said about ten pages ago.

that was good.

Badiou is not a fascist.

thank you Massrock.

 

[nomadthethird]

What do you mean by nobody gives a flying fuck?

Nobody finds it worthwhile, or nobody is bothered by it?

Cos I can tell that it was way different in the cold war years and it looks to me like a deep suspicion and loathing of the c word is alive and well in the US.

Nobody cares about communism in the U.S. And anybody I've ever met here would fight to the death for a communist's right to assemble, to free speech, and to every other civil right any American has.

What happened in the 1950s was based on McCarthy, and a bunch of lobbyists. I'd no more say that "Americans" persecuted U.S. communists than I'd say "Americans" started the War on Terror. A very distinct political lobby did that, despite the fact that most Americans vehemently disagreed with it.

 

[nomadthethird]

I still know nothing about Badiou and probably disagree with lots of what he says but I don't think he's a fascist.

I'm starting to think this discussion is beyond you.

Who said Badiou was a fascist? Nobody. What was discussed earlier was the fact that the historical communist regimes closely resemble historical fascist ones.

That has nothing to do with Badiou, per se.

 

[nomadthethird]

Well it isn't is it. Not always, that's silly.

But in any case is Badiou actually proposing how something specific may be achieved or is he more interested in framing a problem or the means by which a solution might arrive? Isn't that what he says?

Or maybe solutions are proposed and you just haven't read them, or you haven't grasped their meaning, or you simply disagree that they will work. This is a different criticism however.

This "problem" has been framed a million different times and different ways, ALWAYS with the SAME RESULT.

You can keep insisting that there WILL be a world without a dominating class and or a state, but how many millions of people have already offered the world that same insistence? Good for you. But don't expect people not to call your damn bluff.

There is nothing new or interesting about reviving Platonism or universalism. It's just the worst of every possible philosophical world, all in one place.

When those people find a way to actually make this work, I will respect them. Until then, it's just talk. It's cheap. And I don't respect the constant threat of violence on others that Badiou's ilk constantly fall back on. It's immature and stupid. It makes them look like morons.

 

[nomadthethird]

You seem to have rather thoroughly misread that exchange.

Oh? Then why whatever did you mean by that?

You have this way of making a statement, then when you're called out on it, insisting that you've been misread. But not offering any explanation as to how, or why, or what you actually meant.

Convenient.

 

[nomadthethird]

Cos I can tell that it was way different in the cold war years and it looks to me like a deep suspicion and loathing of the c word is alive and well in the US.

Oh, jeez, I wonder why?? Could it be the genocide involved in the commission of the most prominent communist regimes?

 

[matt b]

i have a personal hypothesis

'guys dig chicks with big intellects like chicks dig guys with big dicks'

how would i test it ?

I hope you keep being a prick so you can get banned. Again.

 

[nomadthethird]

Well it isn't is it. Not always, that's silly.

But in any case is Badiou actually proposing how something specific may be achieved or is he more interested in framing a problem or the means by which a solution might arrive? Isn't that what he says?

Or maybe solutions are proposed and you just haven't read them, or you haven't grasped their meaning, or you simply disagree that they will work. This is a different criticism however.

Oh for fuck's sake, "framing" a 150-year-old problem again? Yeah, what a feat.

And no, he doesn't propose any solutions.

 

[matt b]

i would also like to thank Matt for what he said about ten pages ago.

about bakunin?

Loads here:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm

Obviously, still relevant.

 

[massrock]

What happened in the 1950s was based on McCarthy, and a bunch of lobbyists. I'd no more say that "Americans" persecuted U.S. communists than I'd say "Americans" started the War on Terror. A very distinct political lobby did that, despite the fact that most Americans vehemently disagreed with it.

I know about McCarthy, but I also know about Ronald Reagan and what the political atmosphere was like in the later cold war period.

 

[massrock]

Oh? Then why whatever did you mean by that?

I think padraig understood what I was referring to. Not sure if we can go back and pick it all out now, would be intensely tedious for all concerned.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

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.

There's a tradeoff in anything, of course being a communist will have costs & benefits, just as being a Methodist or an Arsenal fan has costs & benefits. Clearly, for people who call themselves communists now - & not in 1950 or even 1980 when that still meant something - the risk is minimal & the benefits outweight the costs.

A good deal of prejudice? Right, well I suppose you couldn't join the John Birch Society or be an economic advisor to the govt or become an investment banker. But there is no serious risk to life or limb or property, no serious persecution, no one will try to ban you from receiving govt services or education or even from holding public office, no one will burn a hammer & sickle on your lawn or commie-bash you.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Nobody finds it worthwhile, or nobody is bothered by it?

Cos I can tell that it was way different in the cold war years and it looks to me like a deep suspicion and loathing of the c word is alive and well in the US.

both but especially the latter. there are plenty of ineffectual communist parties in the States - WWP, numerous Trots, Maoists, total nutters like the Sparticists, etc etc. No one cares about them, they operate like esoteric religious sects & spend most of their time fighting each other over who's more ideologically pure.

I was going to let it go at first - but now you're clearly trying to imply that our critiques of communism are tainted by some kind of American anti-Communist hysteria. as if being suspicious & loathsome of an ideology that has done a great deal more harm than good & spilt rivers of utopian blood could only be motivated by Cold War paranoia. as if anyone who is suspicious of the Catholic Church must be anti-Catholic, and everyone critical of Israel is an anti-Semite. if that's the best smear you've got, then really, stop embarassing yourself.

it is laughable. it also ignores that we're, of course, far more critical of capitalism. the main word here being critical as in, yunno, the ability to think critically.

 

[nomadthethird]

I know about McCarthy, but I also know about Ronald Reagan and what the political atmosphere was like in the later cold war period.

Do tell...

I lived in the U.S. at that time, and sure, there was some heightened rhetoric on the part of politicians about nuclear war. That was something that the WWII generation--all of those guys who fought against fascist armies for the sake of the rest of us--might have taken seriously. But beyond that, nobody here really gave a fuck about "communists"--not communists within in the U.S., not communists outside of the U.S. They were considered kind of outmoded and old fashioned already at that point.

Actually, I remember there being several Russian foreign exchange students who spoke at our elementary school assemblies. They talked about how hard it was to stay fed over there and how difficult it was to change things due to widespread corruption. From what I understand, capitalism had already infected the communist regimes by 1980, and they were trading heavily with capitalist powers-- their economies were already becoming deeply entrenched in global capitalism.

I don't doubt there are some countries in the world where communist regimes were marginally less corrupt and violent than what came before. But that's no excuse for violence, authoritarianism, or corruption either. It's a transparent justification.

 

[nomadthethird]

In fact, the worst things I've heard said about communism have been from people who grew up in the bloc.

One of my closest friends in college was from Romania. She was Transylvanian (her mother was some kind of peasant from a village or something, her father was a party insider who paid off the local government to allow him to do business...can't remember the exact details of what his business was, i'd have to ask again).. and apparently, there were ethnic conflicts there on top of everything, and she wasn't of the "favored" ethnicity. She said women there were treated like baby-making cows and relegated to the domestic sphere.

She was very smart (spoke at least 4 languages fluently, good at math, etc), but she said the only reason she got to leave Romania was because her father had enough money to pay people off and send her to a special "prep school" called the American School which was supposed to get people into American colleges. By that point, Soviet communism had collapsed.

Anyway, she had nothing good to say about what she witnessed there. She's still in the U.S. after getting an MA. She's working in marketing.

Then there's my Ukranian friends...oh lord...they have absolutely nothing good to say about it... probably because they were forced to leave (refugees, like nikbee!) because their parents were a) Jewish, and b) scientists who the party didn't like much.

 

[josef k.]

being a communist will have costs & benefits, just as being a Methodist or an Arsenal fan has costs & benefits.

At least a third of this is definitely true.