dilbert1

Well-known member
... [cont'd]

But the raver is pursuing something different, and that is a certain tribal feeling of community, whether he's participating in organizing the rave or if he's just at the rave itself. Everything about his life shows his search for a perfect and immediate community where egos will have ceased to comprise obstacles between people. He seeks this so blindly that he's ended up confusing it with the hellish fanaticism of a collective quest for depersonalization, where the artificial and molecular explosion of individuality through chemicals has taken the place of inter-subjective development, and where an external negation of the self by the sadistic stomping of machinelike music takes place, and each person slowly erases the lines delimiting his or her singularity. From one confusion to the next, the raver, who intended to escape the false community of the commodity and the paranoiac separation of corporal and psychic egos, finds no other means of reducing his distance from the Other than reducing himself to nothingness. He thus certainly will have no Other left, but he won’t have any Self either. He'll just remain there at the center of himself, in the lunar landscape of his inner desert, which rushes him along, obsesses him, and stalks him. If he continues down the path of annihilation that people have deliberately directed him down, so as to turn him away from the revolutionary project of producing socially the conditions for a possible authentic community, he will only make his every moment of lucidity all the more painful. In the end he will have to choose to abrogate his suffering in one way or another - by regularly ingesting ketamine for example. For the raver, the cure has always been the same as the disease.

And that, at bottom, is the third object of his quest: a certain self-destructive pathos. But since what he's destroying has no value, that self-destruction itself is insignificant. As a kind of suicide, it's pathetic. That act, which once was the most dazzling affirmation of sovereignty, has now been stripped by this world of all its grandeur. People have now found a social function for suicide: it serves domination. This kind of leisure is exactly what the post-industrial society demands to bury any too-flagrant signs of its decomposition beneath striking colors, since it serially produces the kinds of brainless ectoplasms that productivity-hypnosis requires. One might even see a sort of overtime work in this kind of leisure where people submit voluntarily to traumas that only make them all the more resistant to the growing hardness of the world and of work. But to put it plainly, we don't believe in this desperate and premeditated pursuit of death at all. Everyone, at a rave, is quite simply behaving in the image of this society as a whole: it self-destructs in the most frenetic unconsciousness, entrusting the repair of the damage done to some hypothetical future technology, ignoring the fact that redemption does not count among technology's competencies. Because in the end, the raver is "the most contemptuous of people, who doesn't even know how to have any contempt for himself," the last man, who skips along on the now quite cramped surface of the earth, and shrinks everything down to size; he is of a species even more indestructible than the aphid. "We invented happiness," he says, and gives a sly wink. "A little bit if poison now, here and there, to get yourself some pleasant dreams. And a lot of poison in the end, to die pleasantly." Certainly, he goes on working, but his work most often is little more than a distraction. And he sees to it that that distraction will be maintained. "We don't get rich or poor anymore; too boring. Who still wants to govern? Who still wants to obey? Both of those are too boring. No shepherds at all, just one big flock! Everyone wants the same thing, they're all equal: whoever has other feelings can be put away; they'll fit in perfectly at the madhouse. 'In the old days, everyone was insane,' he says, and gives a sly wink." (Nietzsche). He's prudent, in fact; he doesn't want to spoil his appetite. But there's ice in his laughter.

Finally, what the raver seeks is Festival. He wants by all means to escape the hopeless mediocrity of alienated everyday life, as it is planned out for him by organized capitalism. In his own way, he is engaged, as were so many others, in the pursuit of truly lived time, and its agonizing intensity. But in all the apparent chaos of his dancing, we only see the imperious boredom of identical lives, identically uninhabited. The time when he's at raves is no less hollow and empty than the rest of his time is, and it fills his excited, consumer passivity only all too imperfectly. And when you watch him thrash about in it, what you're seeing is just absence gnawing away at him from the inside. But these aren't really parties: they're get-togethers. That is, they're additive multitudes of beings gathering in places where a few other people will have the decency to get them to SHUT UP. There, at the rave, there are but the shadows of men who have forgotten what they wanted to forget, runaways who think they're safe in the folds and recesses of their measly discourse-less sensations, the sterile rioters of a chemical happiness stupidly communing in a supermarket hedonism. Because the real Festival is none other than revolution, which contains within it the whole Tragedy, and the whole sovereign conscience, of an upside-down world. Whereas the revolution is the being at the highest summit of being, the rave is but the nothingness at the deepest depths of nothingness. This apparent negation of the rest of his existence is really nothing but the custom-built supplement that makes that existence tolerable to the raver: the chimerical abolition of time and consciousness, individuality and the world. All of this is little more than crystallized diarrhea for domesticated pigs.

We claim that the energy that's squandered to pure loss in raves should be spent otherwise, and that what we're dealing with here is the end of a world. We've just said a lot of things. It is urgent that they be discussed.


Signed,

The Parisian Fun Police, 1999
 

dilbert1

Well-known member
It's the Tarnac massive again, isn't it?

They were still in Paris at the time, (perhaps squatting?) in the Latin Quarter, 5th arrondissement, 118 rue Mouffetard to be precise.

So rude of Vice to have pulled this article from 2010 down


Abridged it with the best bits:

In 2004, a group of about 20 Parisian squatters and radical grad students began surveying villages around France for a place to which they could relocate and start collectivizing. Tarnac was one name on a long list and was considered not due to any personal connections to the region but because of its rich communist history and the presence of a sympathetic communist mayor.

The Tarnac group’s alternative way of life made them immediately suspect: They were young people with a history as squatters and anarchist activists who had left the bustling Parisian metropolis to go and live in a forsaken village in mountains that had been, historically, a site of guerrilla warfare. That many of the Tarnac group didn’t use cell phones only aroused police suspicion further, a fact the French government later menacingly ascribed to their need to avoid detection.

After the initial tide of media reaction [to the Tarnac Nine trial] died down, French public opinion turned abruptly in the Tarnac Nine’s favor. The group began to be viewed as scapegoats for a Sarkozy government that had gone mad, petrified of terrorists and racist against Muslim immigrants. Suddenly, the Tarnac Nine were seen as simple youth who had moved from Paris to quaint Tarnac to pursue what they, their parents, and their neighbors tenderly described as a “different way of life.” It probably helped that many of the Tarnac Nine came from nice, wealthy families and had gone to graduate school for philosophy, thus making it possible for the media to spin them as a new, sexy Situationist movement rather than rabid proletarians living out in the country.

In a rare published interview with Julien Coupat (often labeled as the leader of the Tarnac Nine), in Le Monde, he responded to the question “Why Tarnac?” by writing, “Go there, you will understand. If you don’t, no one could explain it to you.” The forgotten, heavily wooded area around Tarnac is the French equivalent of the Zapatistas’ mysterious Lacandon Jungle. Tactically, it is an excellent location to hole up and forgo capitalism.

Unlike many Western radicals, who wear their political beliefs on their sleeves, the Tarnac communists have melded into small-town life seamlessly and are practically indistinguishable from “normal” villagers. It is utterly ordinary, barren of clandestine sexiness or confrontational signifiers, yet it still harks back to a simpler, more revolutionary time. The modern European squatter, that pierced and patched mutant of the past 25 years, is nowhere to be seen. The Tarnac communists are, in fact, resolutely post-squatter, having come to the belief that radicals putting themselves into social ghettos—organizing themselves into cliques, organizations, and social milieus—isn’t a path to building serious long-term alternatives.

The most suitable historical comparison to what they are doing is the Russian Narodniks of the 19th century. The Narodniks had been unable to integrate into the rural peasantry because no matter what kind of peasant clothes they wore or peasant dances they learned, they couldn’t conceal their privileged, elite backgrounds. The proletariat can smell a rich kid from a mile away. Even if a rich kid is wearing rags and talking about killing the rich, their entire being is tainted with the unmistakable signs of good upbringing and wealth. It would seem to me difficult, if not impossible, for the dirt-stained locals of Tarnac to accept the faux-peasant communists from Paris without the slightest feelings of ressentiment.

I met a slight blond girl named Marielle in the bar. She looked like she should have been in the movie Amélie. She told me that she had been a squatter in Paris and had moved to Tarnac in 2004, when she was 26. “In the city, it’s very hard to do the kind of things we do here,” she told me. “We have a lot of support. Everyone is very happy that we left Paris.” As we kept talking, she became introspective. “Even when I was living fully in the city—going to parties and bars—I didn’t really like that life.” Marielle was emphatic that there wasn’t a divide between the homesteading communists and the normal villagers, and that the two groups blended seamlessly. She introduced me to a friend of hers, a kind dark-haired woman, probably in her 30s. “She is a villager. I’m from Paris. See! No difference!” Her friend nodded gingerly, “Mostly we all blend together. But sometimes the people talk…” she said, turning to Marielle, “But that’s just gossip.”

Gabrielle came up and asked whether I was vegan and seemed satisfied when I told her I wasn’t. “Good,” she sneered, “veganism is something that happens in the city.” The bearded bartender wearily carved up a smoked-sausage link and passed out stubby slices to people around the bar. I felt periodic rays of antagonism emanating from a fierce-looking redhead across the room, who was wearing a fur cap emblazoned with an unironic-looking Soviet hammer and sickle. The rest of my first night in Tarnac was spent downing glass after glass of watery beer at the bar. The swarthy, blue-eyed bartender said that he, too, had been a Parisian squatter but had grown tired of the big-city life. He seemed to have drunk the small-town Kool-Aid and reiterated the familiar refrain: “We are building something here.”

The mid-2000s had been an explosive time in France—tensions over immigration and racism had erupted into widespread civil unrest after two Moroccan teenagers from the outskirts of Paris were killed while being chased by the police. President Jacques Chirac invoked a 1955 law and declared a state of emergency as cars were burned and stores were sacked all over the country. Then interior minister Sarkozy referred to the rioters as racailles [rabble, riffraff] and declared a policy of “zero tolerance” toward the civil unrest. The rage was not confined to Paris. In the French Alps, a wine festival ended with rocks and bottles being thrown and a junior high school set on fire. “Everyone was writing tracts in every little town,” Antoine said, “every university was working collectively. There were so many tracts that we would decide who we wanted to connect with based on the quality of their writing. Some were good and others were shit. I remember reading a very good one that started with a quote from Tyler Durden, from Fight Club: ‘You are not your job.’” It is worth noting here that Europeans sincerely enjoy things that Americans have long since relegated to the cultural landfill as “lame.” As we spoke, the Rage Against the Machine song “Killing in the Name” came on in the bar, and Antoine bobbed his head up and down, singing along sincerely to the lyrics with feigned fury: “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!

It seems like you give up a lot when you take on an agrarian communist lifestyle: You exist with no job or purpose other than the ill-defined goal of “fomenting the revolution” to guide you. This sounds romantic at first as you read the literature, but it seems to pretty much boil down to milking the goats, getting into arguments with your comrades, and organizing benefits to get your friends out of jail. And as always, melancholy and inertia are pressing in on your little group, from within and without.

What people actually “do” in Tarnac remains a mystery. While none of the individuals I met had paying jobs, and most of them lived off French welfare, no one seemed to be engaged in that most occupying of endeavors for the unemployed: loitering at the bar or store, or taking a stroll on the streets, filling up the empty hours. A palpable anxiety permeates the village, some persistent feeling that the Tarnac group is hiding something: harboring convicts, trafficking in illegal human body parts, or concealing the wreckage of an alien spaceship. Who knows?

Although the communists in Tarnac repeatedly made light of the “dead plasticity” of the metropolis and the “vapid social relations” that exist in big cities, it was Tarnac that felt dead and petrified. Not that anyone in Tarnac claims that utopia is just around the corner or that they are even getting close. For them, it’s all about the process and social experimentation, the “At least we’re trying something.” When I asked him why—what was all this leading to? Antoine just shrugged, “You can be living on a commune with your friends with everything going perfect, and then a neutron bomb explodes 50 miles away.” He raised his hands up and made a whooshing sound, imitating a bomb exploding. Then he took a sip of his coffee and smiled.
 

wektor

Well-known member
They were still in Paris at the time, (perhaps squatting?) in the Latin Quarter, 5th arrondissement, 118 rue Mouffetard to be precise.

So rude of Vice to have pulled this article from 2010 down


Abridged it with the best bits:
So I am indeed moving to Paris in the end.
 

Murphy

cat malogen
Does anyone here go ‘clubbing’? What delineates venues these days, say, from art space to music, booze and drug-hosting business?

Scene is another term riddled with ridiculousness. Sinister scenester. Seen. Being seen. Lazy language but suitable for terrible venues promoting terrible audio as far as I can extrapolate, long may the suffering continue
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
it's abit too pro-situ, insufficiently Leninist, even if the observations are broadly correct.

@dilbert1 what the article misses that all art is fundamentally productive and even in communism, art will be a process of collective collaboration. But it won't exist as a Kantian autonomy of beauty.

Art under communism will be of greater aesthetic merit precisely because less of it will be produced, as pursuant to a radical plan of underconsumption ((the dictatorship which terrifies all middle class beauty is in the eye of the beholder malcontents.) The problem with all art endeavours today is they are oversaturated. nowhere is this more apparent than in dance music. Too much shit which has no reason to exist than to be a turnover for weekly trust fund drug orgies.

What the article tries to say about rave is correct, but starts off from the wrong point of organic community, and thereby discredits any attempts to historical materialism. Here is a better formulation of the problem, from 1953:
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Word and Song

The German writer Thomas Mann, today a champion of democratic conformism, is correctly remembered as a forerunner, in the time of Wilhelm II, of the Hitlerian doctrines of the national mission of the people and of the German Reich. His pronouncement made forty years ago, about Germany needing a world history such as Spain, France and England had had, wouldn’t have seemed so crazy if not for its lateness with respect to the era in which Marx and Engels castigated the German bourgeoisie for its ignominious absence from the historical scene and the tortuous path it had taken to achieve its national State a century ago. But what interests us is the counter-posing in Mann’s thought of the values, as Croce would say, of the German and Western spirits. Then Mann was lashing out against the “Zivilisation” that he today admires in the pro-American camp, and contrasting it with German kultur. For him the latter was not only anti-western and anti-democratic, but anti-authoritarian and anti-literary too. Germany was a land that was unliterarisches, wortlos, nicht vortliebend – enemy of the word and prose. German profundity sought expression not in the banalities of chatter, but in metaphysics, poetry and above all in music, the art that speaks to man without words.
If it is true that music has an ultra-national expression, it is no less true that it came into being as a vehicle for words, and words in their turn came into being as vehicles for the rules connected with work, with technology. Therefore art isn’t the mode of expression, of communication, but the actual content of the communication, of the expression.
Thus the natural and historical road was: uniform rules governing life and work, music, song, poetry; much, much later came words and prose. Mann, as the barbaric apologist for the illiterate Arminius (Hermann) who crushed the legions of the refined Varus in the forest of Teutoburg, was much nearer the mark than today’s chooser of liberty against the excesses which in 1914 he called ‘revolutionary’, such as the tearing up of treaties; texts which would certainly be difficult to set to music.
Since the first constitutions couldn’t be written down or inscribed in monumental stonework they were transmitted word for word by memory. Mnemonic requirements meant they would be drawn up in verse form; only in legend does one person write them when in fact they distil common wisdom and practice.
The Poet, who today writes and publishes, used to just sing. Then the Poet was not one individual but rather the community, and whoever was unable to chant the verses had no other way of preserving the data of his or her life; civilizing prose has led to bank-accounts, achievable by any cynical boor. But back then we sowed, and reaped, and were married, and were born, to the chanting of given rhythms which everyone knew, because the collective memory preserved the words and the musical motif. The idea of committing the non-rhyming word to memory is something that comes after writing.


Fecundity of the Numerus

Music sticks in the mind for mechanical and physical reasons. Rhythm is number, the exact measure of time. Tonality and harmony arise from rigid mathematical proportions existing between the number of vibrations hitting the ear. The ear is the first measuring instrument used by man: the eye, qualitatively so much richer, is quantitatively subject to glaring errors.
The practical fact is, thanks to the musical nature of choral chanting it first became possible to transmit and teach rules to a collectivity, and so consolidate the victory of the latter with respect to the life of brutes: productive art. Humanity sang in order to live, not for enjoyment, nor to discover an absolute and “useless” pleasure such as Kant claimed to have discovered. It was the one means that responded to this utilitarian aim: of keeping the species but the collective memory alive and developing its potential when no other archive existed.
Is this just some lucubration, some novelty, dreamt up by ourselves? In fact it’s an idea that has been around for three thousand years. In Greek mythology, the nine muses are the children of Mnemosine, the goddess of memory.
That the nightingale also has a sense of musical timing and pitch just goes to prove that Music is closer to natural and material functions than the distant reaches of pure spirit.
It is a very stale objection that, having once discovered the technical method of writing of music, a long time after written language, only eight note symbols suffice to denote even the most sublime of musical scores.
It was a huge advance in human knowledge to establish two elements as equal. Primitive man knew via his senses only concrete objects none of which were the same: two stones, two leaves, four birds, to begin with stopping at five, the number of fingers on one hand.
Pythagoras in ancient times is famous for having assimilated in his school music and mathematics: both were numerus. The fact that in the same “step” one went from one to two, and then from two to three, seems today not only simple and straightforward, but obvious and banal, even for an infant in primary school. But it was an astonishing achievement then. The “Principle of recurrence” which allows for the handling of the infinite series of numbers using this method isn’t obvious; it isn’t axiomatic; it cannot be demonstrated by logical deduction, and so isn’t to be found in the realm of the spiritual, and just picked up. It is a result achieved empirically through the collaboration of innumerable beings in the life of the species which talks, sings, and counts.
Well then, in the same way the principle of recurrence covers the most difficult theorems of pure arithmetic and all mathematics, including the equations of Einstein’s theory of relativity – which are understood by one in a million people – and his still mysterious unified theory too, so also is the Ninth Symphony contained within Guido D’Arezzo’s seven notes. Complexity and greatness depend on the length and richness of the long journey.
That the Ninth Symphony was written at all is extraordinary, but no less extraordinary is that anybody can perform it; and that it can move people despite the lack of a common language. Its universal value wasn’t therefore given from the start, but only at the end of a long journey; a journey, moreover, in which millions have taken part.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Art and Class Struggle

Let us then shimmy up the rungs of this ladder, so much longer than Abraham ever saw. Marxism has always linked its critique of the great golden ages of Art to the great transitional events between one mode of production and the other. If ever there was an Art that was truly collective and naturalistic it was Greek Art, some of whose masterpieces, according to some, are still unsurpassed. Why did the flourishing of such an Art spread from Attica to the Asiatic shores of the Aegean Sea colonised by the Greeks, following in the footsteps of the first industrial and commercial economy, and then vanish from those colonies when their free citizens were defeated by the Persians? As ever striding forth in seven league boots, Engels comments: «If the decline of former classes such as the knighthood could offer material for great tragic works of art, philistinism [of the German petty bourgeoisie] can achieve nothing but impotent expressions of fanatical malignity...».
The time has come, as so often happens, to refer to Engels. We need to prove that we aren’t just plucking new theories out of thin air, as usually happens after a bottle of wine has been opened, but are sticking to the line; following the great red thread.
We are dealing with the relationship between capitalism and Art, which will lead us on to an examination of the relationship between capitalism and heroes.
The approach and first outbreak of the bourgeois revolution, dating back to different times in various nations ranging from the 15th to the 19th centuries, led to a great flowering of literature and in all the arts. The sequence in a general geographical sense is: Italy, Netherlands, France, England, Germany, Russia. But as soon as the mode of capitalist production emerges from its revolutionary incubation, as soon as it spreads it reveals itself as crassly anti-aesthetic. In the artistic balance sheet of this half of the nineteenth century, what is there to put on the plus side?
Something similar happened as regards the balance sheet of ‘heroism’.
Here we have to hand a magnificent article by Engels, written in 1850, about our alleged fellow traveller Thomas Carlyle. It is, in fact, one of those theoretical roastings in which one rather regrets that too much space has been devoted to the mounds of rubbish reviewed whilst our own elaboration of the theme has been restricted to critical asides.
Carlyle may be numbered amongst the many enemies and critics of the sordidness of emergent capitalist society; amongst those various economists, sociologists, politicians and writers who captured, sometimes in very incisive ways, its contemptible aspects and who were able to strip away its sumptuous covering of progress and civilization. But they weren’t of sufficient stature to understand the indispensable benefits of capitalism, and although containing flashes of subversion and revolution they relapsed into nostalgia for the old regime.
They were unable to understand the immense productive potential of associated labour which capitalism had introduced, albeit as exploitation and class monopoly, bringing into play forces which would overshadow the personal exploits of legendary heroes once and for all. The government of Nations had fallen into the hands of usurers, shopkeepers and cynical and uncouth slave-drivers but they couldn’t be toppled by resurrecting the knights and princes. The serious lack of style with which today’s sharks and parvenus use the proceeds from flogging salami to buy Rembrandts, probably fake, at inflated prices, brings to mind the Roman consul, who, delivering a statue from the Parthenon to the slaves who would be crewing the ship, threatened that if they broke it they would have to make another one; in any case, it doesn’t change the fact that the modern market and the ancient warrior both moved the wheel of history forward.


Carlyle’s Wrath

The Scottish writer hurls fire and brimstone against the baseness of his times. He inveighs against the vulgarity of the bourgeoisie, and even against the subjection of proletarians, the poor, brutalised by their exploitation and all and sundry are menaced with rhetorical extermination.
He praises the revolution as an unfolding drama, or as Engels puts it «Where he recognises the revolution, or indeed apotheosises it, in his eyes it becomes concentrated in a single individual, a Cromwell or a Danton».
Alas! How many people became communists and Marxists not because of Lenin’s long struggle, not because of the immensely hard work he put in and the brilliant ideological reconstruction he accomplished, but because of his dazzling successes and the fact his name became associated with a historical drama. How many just wanted to quench their desire for hero-worship and nothing more? It would cost the revolutionary party dear and even corrupt the work of Lenin himself.
Carlyle thought in whatever field the Genius chose to work, he would always be right. He used to admire the style of certain German writers who are virtually forgotten today, but as for the much more significant Hegel, he wasn’t even aware of him. Such is the destiny of cultists of personal value. As Engels would point out, «In the cult of genius, which Carlyle shares with Strauss, the genius has got lost in the present pamphlets. The cult remains».
Indeed, this morbid need to admire ‘towering geniuses’ inevitably has its down side: passivity. Prostrate adulation becomes an end in itself, and when it cannot be focussed on a person, it flags, only to re-emerge when the latest colourful, although intrinsically shallow ‘personality’ comes along, unaware he is destined for total obscurity.
The tempestuous events that inflamed Europe in 1848 were bound to have an impact on a man like Carlyle. But just as he had no wish to laud the arrival of the commercial and industrial form of economy, so also – and he was right – he felt no need to defend liberalism and democracy. The story about a ship caught in the gales off Cape Horn is his. Having been blown off course, the crew choose their course by putting the compass points to the vote, and adopt the decision of the majority. And yet the historical message is completely lost. Why? Because he goes off in search of a protagonist of heroic stature! And where does he find him? In Pope Pius IX! And where does he see the main clash of forces taking place? Is it between feudalism and capitalism, between an authoritarian and a constitutional system? No, absolutely not! It’s a struggle of Truth against Lies, Falsehoods and “Shams” (fantasmi) and, according to him, it is against just such nasty things that the popular masses rose up in Paris, Vienna, Messina and Lisbon.
And when it is a question of establishing who it is precisely who can identify Truth and Greatness, the author relies on the Wise, the Elect and The Noble since they alone are up to the task. He then proceeds to reduce the historical struggle, about which he has understood precisely nothing, to a frantic hunt for the great Leader, the exalted figure, to whom the destiny of poor old humanity can be entrusted. And although pouring scorn on the vulgar egoism of the bourgeoisie, which is incapable of aspiring to such giddy heights, he ends up by unwittingly relapsing into undiluted praise for the captains of industry... And to arrive at this point he has explained away the 1848 uprisings with the motto which supposedly inflamed the crowds: Begone, ye imbecile hypocrites, away with non-heroic histrions! We need heroes!
Based on just such falsifications as these the ridiculous craving for heroes has survived for more than a century, unwittingly affecting current Marxist analysis of the events of 1848 and of all the other great historical eruptions from Europe’s underground!


Engels’ cold shower

We can only recapitulate Engel’s ruthless demolition job: «We can see the “noble” Carlyle proceed from a thoroughly pantheistic mode of thinking. The whole process of history is determined not by the development of the living mass itself, naturally dependent on specific historically created changing conditions, themselves determined (...) All would depend on the knowledge of an eternal law of nature, accessible to the wise and the noble, not the fools and the rogues. The struggle between classes is replaced by an antithesis which is resolved by bowing to nobles and wise men: hence by the cult of genius».
But how, Engels continues, are we to find these wise and noble souls? It inevitably leads to a sanctioning of the rule of the privileged classes, who monopolise education along with everything else; and to bowing one’s head to the vulgar rule of the bourgeoisie, who in words Carlyle claims to despise. Carlyle’s «sole grumble and complaint, is that the bourgeoisie does not assign a position at the top of society to its unrecognised geniuses». And here it is that Carlyle discerns “a new class of commanders of men having arisen in England, a new aristocracy”!
And that is where the ‘cult of genius’ ends up, in abject prostration before its enemy! There are plenty of shallow people who would be drawn to the proletarian party if it put its ‘unknown geniuses’ on display. But once they’d seen some bigger and better genius elsewhere, they’d soon move on elsewhere. When talking about this or that party or movement, we are sick to death of hearing political philistines ask, with a self-important air “but but who is in it?”.
The Marxist party should always say: we have nobody to put on show. To the enemy class and their party we declare, we intend to cast down all geniuses and all idiots; and that’s that.

 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
and:

Therefore, Trotsky, who puts things in order, is then properly “repaired”. He had the boldness to say that the proletariat could only absorb bourgeois culture. And further, as long as the proletariat exists, the proletariat can only accept bourgeois culture, and if it creates a new culture, it will not be proletarian, because then the proletariat no longer exists. Trotsky’s position of course arouses indignation, but it is not worth reproducing the silliness with which he is considered. In any case, he formulates the core of Marxist determinism. In the field of schools, the press, propaganda, the church, etc., as long as the working class is exploited, the spread of bourgeois ideology always has all the advantages on its side. Of course, if the revolution does not want to lose its part, it must be able to count on strong fighting masses, but without assuming in the least that they are free of bourgeois economic and cultural influences. Rather, it is the opposition of the material productive forces, which inevitably pushes them to fight, that has not yet come to the consciousness of the fighters – and there can be even less talk of scientific culture!
The purely idealistic background of the anti-barbaric group, however, is revealed in the fact that they present the clash between two cultures as a perspective. And very quickly all that remains is the struggle for a culture, the culture par excellence.
Before it can free itself from unjust exploitation, before it has the right to rebellion, the proletariat, which has assimilated existing cultures after all, is to build the foundations of a new culture on this basis. Does this mean that the class must first develop its own ideology in order to be able to fight? Worse! A culture would never be an ideology or orientation, but an organic whole (?), a series of ideologies and currents (organic? or eclectic?). What the hell is that supposed to mean? This is explained by the conclusions they draw from this: The diversity of tendencies that would form a culture would imply that the creative appropriation of culture by the proletariat had freedom of opinion as an essential prerequisite. So that’s it: And what the hell is this freedom of opinion supposed to be? We’ll know in a minute. Insofar as they merely expressed themselves in ideological terms (?!), the reactionary ideological currents, which would of course also appear in the transitional society, would have to be fought with ideological weapons and not with material means restricting freedom of opinion.
So that is the purpose of the communist class culture to which the proletariat is to be committed before it takes power! And if it then holds power, it should respect all possible cultures and exercise its dictatorship in such a way that a bourgeois cannot throw sand, or bombs, into the gears, but can very well propagate reactionary ideology and philosophy, whereby one has committed oneself to confront it only with ideological, and not, Lord help us, material means. Material means would be e.g. a few blows to the head or the confiscation of the printing machine. But no, on the contrary, he should be asked to write or speak in the communist newspapers or at communist meetings, whereupon he is only met with reverence and by means of ideological weapons with a philosophical “rebuttal”!

 

shakahislop

Well-known member
Does anyone here go ‘clubbing’? What delineates venues these days, say, from art space to music, booze and drug-hosting business?
don't know about anywhere else but here it's very clearly delineated. maybe some blurred lines where bars and indie rock venues are sort of also clubs, but a decent cluster of unambiguous clubs. at least six in brooklyn, plus whatever bottles and models stuff goes on in manhattan, never been out there
 

Murphy

cat malogen
Aye venues are always out there Shaqqa, just reflecting back during a munch break as a focus on attending past events in New York from a British senior’s musical perspective and, as you state, what can be heard today and where (as delineated in your description)

Never even considered indie tbh due to, yunno, alternative-alternative altars of sound. Mates and myself were on a quest to find collective musical joy soaking up the treasures of US house and garage while getting absolutely mullered together, albeit from a fairly narrow musical catalogue but on seriously fat beautifully separated bright thumping crispy-clear rigs

Shelter was a gaff and a half, moved around multiple venue hubs during a myriad of visits. It also had a key core cohort who were entirely straight edge, yet the night was an anarchic human zoo too. If you add up the levels of conviviality from conversations with spannered randoms, to people who’d been at work all night and were looking to de-stress just through dance (significant %), to the sheer maniacal energy emitted out of rammed hell-let-lose dance floors, rare treats indeed as to be beyond repeating once you reach your own personal age threshold

Sound Factory was much more tricky getting into, rigmarole of door scrutiny so any/all shirts ironed, surreal too as Jr Vasquez was a cunt who could have *severe off nights. More hedonistic in its darker areas, more sex, guests who smashed it far more fully than their famous resident musically. Seriously, never understood the Vasquez hype and the venue was always a shrine to one man’s ego. Dare anyone to find a decent JV set which doesn’t drag after 15mins ..

Key point is not judging those who seek to de-stress from a night of dancing to music (one of humanity’s grand universals), more how ‘clubbing’ as a formula has exhausted nearly every whimsy after multiple decades as it seeks to get the punters in. ‘Parties’ always click more readily when your attendees arent ‘punters’ so much as a dancers. Then again, what do I know, maybe skibideetoiletcore is lighting up venues previously rinsed by Covid

ps do people still dance?

*cunt
 

Murphy

cat malogen
When he was on, he was on

Didnt his booth have a customised armchair and all the trimmings, eg kettle, toaster?
 

shakahislop

Well-known member
‘Parties’ always click more readily when your attendees arent ‘punters’ so much as a dancers. Then again, what do I know, maybe skibideetoiletcore is lighting up venues previously rinsed by Covid

ps do people still dance?

*cunt
yeah. the story here so far as i can make out is that for a long time between the period you're talking about and about 2018 things really went to shit dancing and clubs-wise here. the regulatory stuff made it impossible, everything got shut down. musically as well it seems to have been a nadir, loads of that indie dance thing everywhere. one of the guys who runs nowadays now i heard talking about arriving in a place that was a mecca for him in 2005 or something and walking around trying to find places where people were dancing. and basically ending up running nights in like a club set up by Andrew WK coz that's what was around and available. but these days it's a proper boom time for all that, people seem to think that these are some new glory days for dancing in nyc.

the dancefloors are very much for dancing in the main clubs, you can get chucked out if you're standing around chatting in some of them. there's quite a lot of places where you can reliably show up to a busy dancefloor any weekend

there's fuck all good in manhattan now though
 
Top