Nice blog, thoughtful, interesting, provocative. Keep going boss...
Fancy a nice review? Try MayDay...
Visit Count Alain Sucrose, CBE Founder of 'Hamstrands'
How's CamClegg for you? Stir the Poll Pot, and all things political..
Mad Man's Blog
Hello....... welcome to my blog, which in truth is more often just a bunch of rambling essays of various lengths. But I am currently thinking about some stuff that might interest you, so i will write them down in the breaks between Sky News coverage, if I am feeling really crazy i might switch over and watch Fox News (it's great?) and maybe even the Iranian News Channel whoop!
Click below for latest entries and head lines etc.
Latest Article: 'THOUGHTS ON POETRY AND PHILOSOPHY' A PHILOSOPHICAL LOOK AT POETRY, ITS RELATIONS TO PHILOSOPHY AND IT'S DIFFERENCES FROM IT
Latest Ramblings...........
25/7/10 WHY CAN’T WE STRESS TEST CAPITALISM?
One of the most interesting aspect of the financial crisis of the last few years, is the way that capitalism has not only maintained it’s ideological hegemony, but actually strengthened it. How has this been possible? After all, capitalism has always been understood as ‘imperfect’ but the ‘best possible system’ nonetheless. It has always been understood to be unfair, but still preferable, because it could be left to its own devices, it was optimised for growth, productivity and profit. This is why democratic governments had tied their own fortunes to its machinations, hoping to benefit from it, by allowing capitalism to function unhindered by the State, which imposed only the minimum levels of control (which capitalism needed, to allow it’s proper functioning). The State hoped to benefit by increased tax revenues, ploughed into welfare, and the public sector, effectively, subsidies, to placate those that were left out of the capitalist bonanza, and who were being offered no substantial stake or role in it. Yet the myth that sustained this position by the State, and effectively allowed capitalism free reign, has been shattered in the wake of financial crash.
Capitalism, left to its own devices, almost destroyed itself. Wealth inequality is rising, welfare is failing, and the public sector is unsustainable in most developed economies. It can no longer be demonstrated de facto that capitalism left unhindered is the best option. After all, the State was forced to save it. And yet, this is the position that we are desperate to return to. Efforts to tame capitalism in regulation, supervision, are already failing, simple tokenism by finance ministers and secretaries to seem tough on capitalists for the sake of placating the public anger over bailouts. But how is capitalism getting away with this? How is it able to not only maintain its hegemony but strengthen it? The tactic deployed is to agree to its own failures. The pubic sentiment is matched by the capitalists themselves, who cry out for someone to regulate them a little, just as the plead for their governments for bail outs and assurances. The sheer gall of capitalism is laid bare, it admits that the old beliefs about free market based unhindered capitalism are as bankrupt as the system itself, but still, so dependent are we on this system, that we must try and continue to believe, regardless.
We are asked to believe in a myth. This is difficult to do, yet again. For this is not the first time we have been asked to buy back into the myth. Hence the lack of confidence in the system right no,. but over time, we will no doubt succumb to the myth once more. But the ever present risk of disaster that will take us all down with it, means that capitalism is able to strengthen its grip: ‘We agree that the system is flawed, but if we don’t renew it, the effects will be far worse’ we can not abandon or even rethink capitalism, not right now, when it is so weak, yet so essential to social stability and prosperity. Crisis may well be present for a long time, as it has yet to disappear.
The recent ‘stress testing’ of European banks is evidence of this. The tests themselves tell us the answer that is not ideal, but the right answer nonetheless. Things are bad, but not as bad as they could be. The way the stress was applied, the very test itself, was engineered to render this fact: the system is still viable, there is reason for increased confidence, but still too weak to take to task or try and reform. The best result possible, capitalism always gets its cake, eats it, then gets you to pay for it. This stress testing is the perfect example for what capitalism is today, weakened in it’s reality, but strengthened ideologically. It’s position cemented, despite its failures. It is immune though, even to common sense, even if say, a politician, economist or philosopher, managed to develop a system that seems to fix the failures and excesses of capitalism, it will remain a fantasy, the capitalists would lining up to congratulate this genius, but: ‘‘you make a good argument, but it can’t be implemented right now, the future is too uncertain, the transition would be too costly, someday though!’’ for how long shalll we hear this?
16/7/10 UNVEILLING: RESSENTIMENT WHY BAN MUSLIM DRESS?
What is the motivation behind attempts by the French government to ban the Veil and Muslim head scarf from public places? A right wing attempt to punish anyone different? A staunch defence of Liberal Secularism in the face of Islamic fundamentalism? This is how the debate is drawn, but things are more complex than this.
In part, it is a band aid on a gaping wound, the failure of European multiculturalism. The measures under consideration are unlikely to be effectively enforced, they may not even pass, as they enter a legal minefield, even if the French Parliament ratifies the ban, the European courts could well overturn it, or negate its effectiveness. The whole thing seems to be about a matter of principle: What unites France? It’s Secular Republicanism, and what undermines it? Radical religious difference and intolerance, and repression. The old debate comes to a head, where should the line of tolerance be drawn? What should the limit of the tolerance for those that are intolerant be? This issue, is a difficult one to address, because the limits as they are drawn, are always ‘groundless’ in any objective legitimacy, they are, although always disavowed, arbitrary, based on irrational, pre-liberal positions. These kinds of debates are always difficult, because they expose the ground of Liberal secularist tolerance, as being ‘ungrounded’ by any rational principle, the ‘problem of the axiom’ is applicable here. ‘Why is this tolerated and not that?’ . This awkwardness is unwelcome, but it in part, the problem comes down to a differing French and Anglo Saxon views of ‘liberty‘.
Following Rousseau, so influential in the formation of French political thought, and in the intellectual formation of French Republicanism, one must be ‘forced to be free’ in the French case. The Muslim Women in question, are posed as examples of repressed and enslaved individuals, who must come to realize that even if they believe they freely choose to cover up, they are in fact shunning their freedom, their responsibility to be free subjects in public life. The system, which forces its subjects to be free, demand that this sign of their repression in a system which denies their equality, must not be tolerated. The French have less of a problem than the Anglo Saxon world in this respect, what must not be ‘tolerated’ is that which prevents us from being universally equal subjects, bound by a common fraternity of secularism, that forces us to accept this reality of equality.
For Anglo Saxon nations, Liberty is the right to self determination, within a common law limit. As nothing in common law can find any issue with Muslim dress, then it is permitted, even if not desirable by the majority. Any attempts to enforce this uniformity is seen as an authoritarian excess, an infringement on our right to choose, which breaks the organic nature of liberty, that is, if this can be banned, then what prevents other things from being banned? The Libertarian undertones are clear, that any individual should be free from the excesses of authority, being ‘forced’ to do anything but adhere to Common Law, is fundamentally wrong, and ungrounded. This difference is telling, on just why, in Modern France, such a ban is being considered. But the issue is yet more complex than this.
Is it not the case that the hysteria, over the Other of the Muslim, as fanatic, as fundamentalist, authoritarian, is a disavowed fantasy that the French themselves wish to indulge in? a repressed desire they in fact wish to share? They project onto the Other, exactly what they lack, but wish to possess. A classic example of Nietzsche’s concept of ‘ressentiment’. The French are acting in a fundamentalist way, with a fanatical devotion to the ideal of Secularism, and using the authority of ‘enforced liberty’ to justify their desires. The undertones of racism and intolerance are undoubtedly at work, to some respect, these people can not be tolerated, they who dare to think differently than most French citizens, to resist the offerings of universal Republicanism, that demands secularism in public as a necessary requirement.
Unacceptable difference, because it dares to be different in a way that cannot be accepted precisely because of those irrational grounds discussed. Attempting to understand this debate in terms of rational discussions on the limits of tolerance jumps the gun, we should ask whether or not we are forcing out differences we just do not like, for irrational, racist, or bigoted reasons, because we enjoy upsetting those who we assume, hate us. We should ask, if Muslim dress is necessarily a derogatory and repressive symbol. And asking why we are targeting this group: is it because they have scorned our gifts? Because they don’t accept our way, the nice way, so we have to force them to accept them, under the pretence of the Law? I suspect this is, in reality is the case.
10/710 BLOOMING ECK, ITS THAT ZIZEK!
Zizek’s appearance on Newsnight this week was a welcome surprise for all those interested in his philosophy. God knows a quick peruse among many of the articles, and blogs on here, and the debt to his thought is pretty obvious. But Zizek is far from perfect, of course, and one of his main failings, for me personally, is not a theoretical one, but his dogmatic position of engaging with popular culture and the media regradless of how approriate it is. While not a theoretical flaw, it does lead to a tendency to engage with those who just do not get him, the result is he does not come across as important and prescient as he is.
Zizek turns up to anything it seems. An enthusiasm that is part of his appeal, a man that won’t shut up, which is a great attribute when you are as brilliant as he can be. His appearance coincided with (yet) another new book, ‘Living in the End Times’ which he failed to plug, rather commendably, instead using the brief time slot he had to answer the slightly idiotic questions posed to him. As usual, he was portrayed as the ‘Elvis of Cultural Theory’ a title that is not really all that helpful, even if it is one he does little to dissuade, as it appears on most of the backs of his books after all. He is portrayed as the eccentric Communist, a half truth at best, Zizek seems to play on this image ironically most of the time, but then it can't really be said he is not serious, for him Marx is no footnote or name to be dropped to show off his intellectual credntials. But it leaves the questioners bemused in interviews such as this, how can anyone support communism, after its record in the 20th century?
Well Zizek doesn’t on these grounds defend Marx or communism, and his work offers a more insightful analysis of the 20th century's failure of communism than perhaps any other Philosopher alive. Just as he did, in the Newsnight interview, which meant, yet again, he had little time to articulate his position regarding the crisis that face us as a civilization. Problem number two is, that Zizek is prone to repeating himself, a lot. This is not unusual in academia, but it is in popular culture, his books have too much of what has been said before by him in earlier efforts, you get the feeling he should just put it all in one book and be done with it. Ironically for a supposed Communist, he is the most valuable philosophical commodity on the market right now, and the purity of his thought is cut and distilled like heroin, and I suspect his latest effort will be much the same as his recent works in this respect.
The fact that he defiantly sticks to communism is a virtue though, he does not fall into the capitalist ideology he so succinctly critiques, by adopting some anaemic liberalism or soft socialism. He is correct in arguing that the resources of Marxism, and psycho-analysis as well as German idealism, which are awkwardly shunned from the current liberal intellectual hegemony, is a sign of their importance, why, when capitalism subsumes everything, does it leave these traditions out in the cold? The tools of Marx can still be deployed efffectively. In fact, Marx may be more vital than ever, as Zizek stated in his interview, and as he as stated before, the struggle of today is the ‘struggle of the Commons’. In this respect, Zizek comes close to the likes of Phillip Blond, who obviously, pales in comparison, but is important as a prime thinker of New Conservatives such as David Cameron, we do still think in terms of the community, Zizek's example, was on Global warming. and yet, we bar, irrationally, communism from the debate. Why?
Zizek’s analysis goes further though, and despite the apparent anachronistic nature of communism regarding today’s problems, it keeps open that space, or site, which is not already a site of late capitalism in disguise. Which is why we must not embrace communism cynically, because in that sense, it has already been subsumed by prevailing ideology, we must instead, take it seriously. It almost has a ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ feel to it. We can not escape ideology completely afterall, so the reflexive capacity needed towards a particular ideology, the most pressing, being capitalism right now, is found in adopting the ideological framework of another, its old antagonist, communism. It is the conflict generated by the two that is of interest to us, we do not have to be committed to bringing about a communist Utopia, but we do need to have some avenue open to us, that is not already assimilated into the structure of late capitalism, that poses so many problems to us, economic, ecological, technological etc. It is here where Zizek's work is vital.
4/7/10 WHY THE DEMOCRACY VILLAGE SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN.
The supposed ‘democracy village’ encampment currently occupying Parliament Square, still faces being shut down. The opposition to it is interesting, and is already a sign of how this is not an example of infringement on the right to protest. A right that has been challenged of late, but on grounds of health and safety? A little pathetic, but in a sense, this is surely a good thing. The authorities dare not attempt to challenge the right to protest head on, they must utilize a more subversive strategy, that can only work by our own compliance. Imagine if, for instance, the minimum wage was challenged, would health and safety restrictions keep away thousands from marching on Parliament? would a police crackdown not be it’s own health and safety nightmare? unlikely.
But the truth is, that we on the left, not just the right, should want this village to disappear. Because more often than not, these kind of protesters, are a place holder for the left’s indignation that it feels, but is too busy, lazy or impotent, to act upon. At any rate, these protestors do not represent any significant theoretical insight into the nature of the global system, or effective remedy to it. War is bad, period. Put aside the fact that the Left must, if it is to regain its energy and importance, recognise the role of struggle (which is not the same as war, but may entail some level of non standard resistance) the war they now protest against, the Afghan war, is opposed for the same reasons as the Iraq war was. This simplistic approach is ignorant, and stupid, it is a gross conflation. The war in Afghanistan had justified motives, by any recognised standard in the West. It was fundamentally different to Iraq. But that doesn’t matter to most of these protestors, who speak the same nations and their conflicts in the same breath. Is all war bad? the American War of Independence? the Second World War? Most of the louder opposition to the war in Afghanistan, to the more thoughtful arguments against it, comes from the right. No surprise that the BNP are opposed to it, they belief that Afghanistan is not worth spilling the blood of British soldiers for. Many conservatives agree with them, but offer far better arguments for withdrawal.
Beyond this, it’s a pure leftist indulgence, that represents what is wrong with the left, all its anti conformist activity is just another form of passive conformity, a revolution without revolution. We know, from the outset, that all protests must be peaceful. And we know, even if we disavow our knowledge of it, that it is just an exercise in relieving our tension to the status quo, it won’t actually challenge it. The very form of this protest is indicative of this: they hope to seem as the weak, the helpless, almost inviting eviction to highlight their cause, because they do not know how to push their cause, and make it relevant, off of their own backs. It’s structure is interesting too, a fixed settlement, as regimented and inflexible as the ideology that fuels it, to be a true threat to the system, one must be a Nomad, an inhabitant of the system yes, an affective component, but one that can transgress the framework that forces a sedimentation on us. Free to move, to upset the status quo, in its very geography and topology, this is the key to most successful protests of history, they arise from ‘nowhere’ they can disappear, quickly, but also return quickly, and this is key to there potency. But the Parliament Square protest is allocated its spot, it’s safe, comfortable and harmless, only challenged, not because it is a threat, but because it is an eyesore.
One extra element is missing, violence. We all bought the 1960’s argument that protests can only work, if they agree to be peaceful. The authorities must be the violent aggressor. This is a clear cut example of why we should reject this kind of protest, firstly, it is entirely reactive, the protest’s effectiveness is not generated by it’s own affirmation of its righteousness, or belief in its correctness and justice, it has to allow the authorities to act first. So what happens? usually, the authorities do not rise to the bait, they allow the protest to move to completion, with little resistance, and this serves only to highlight the protests own impotence. What is lacking, is violence. Not simply, the expression of physical violence, but the power to force disruption, to threaten that which should be threatened, or opposed. A violence as a menace. This is what is needed. Failing this, nothing is better than what we have with the Parliament Square protestors, the kind of protests that are forever chained to the logic we have just discussed. If nothing happens, then perhaps, a more authentic resistance can build up, that can really threaten the status quo..
9/6/10 IS SOCIALISM A DIRTY WORD?
It should not surprise us, that in an age in which it seems that socialism as an ideology is once more pertinent, with the bail out of banks, with looming ecological disasters, and economic and social crisis, that it should also become a derogatory term in some parts of our culture of such visceral strength. Taking socialism seriously is seen as being unpatriotic in parts of America, Obama is called a socialist (in extreme cases even a communist) over his health care bill. Yet ironically, it almost seems that those that are critical of him want him to be a bit more of a socialist with regards the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Obama is the perfect example of the bizarre situation we find ourselves in with regards to socialism. On the one hand, it’s seen as discredited ideology, on the other it’s still needed. For what Obama’s problem is, is that he is the wrong kind of socialist, not realising that socialism’s job is now to clean up the mess of the excesses of capitalism. Obama ’didn’t get the memo’ it seems.
But why can’t we move socialism onto the ground of positivity? Why must it’s determination always be negative, reactive? The problem lies in the way socialism is posed: on the grounds of the distinction between the private and the public. Socialism is always portrayed as destroying the creativity and primacy of the private. The private sector, is the ‘engine of wealth creation’ the creative sector of human activity, the ‘real’ of the economy. In truth, we assume that the world is a collection of private interests and communities, units that enter into relations (economic, social, religious, cultural) with each other (Thatcher’s claims that ‘there is no society’ is interesting to bear in mind here). The public sphere is seen as a collection of private interests. For socialism, the cliché is that it tramples these individual private spaces, and forces a uniformity upon them, rendering each as subject to the law of the public space. Inequalities, differences are removed, and what is left is a homogenous and artificial imposition. Of course this is a parody of socialism that needs to be resisted. Because the private space never generates itself as a closed circuit, a sealed economy, it is, in reality, always already a reaction to the public space of the Other.
The public is already in the private, and visa versa. It maybe that a successful socialism will escape these distinctions altogether. But socialism’s supposed destruction of the forces of the private that render capitalism a success are in large part an illusion. Even so, we live in an age where individual elements (such as finance or corporations) have the potential to destroy the security of everyone else’s private interest, this is the great irony we need to bear in mind.
The banking collapse shows, how the rule of private interests following their own interests, risks contagion. So while the benefits of these private interests remains largely in private possession, the risks of their failure affects everyone. So are the activities of BP, and (potentially) those who are involved in genetic sciences. We live in an age of inversed socialism, where we do not have a ’redistribution of wealth’ but a ’redistribution of poverty’ or redistribution of disaster. So the goal should be to realize the hypocrisy of those who defend capitalism on the grounds mentioned. Capitalism is not some defence of private difference, but a means of socializing inequality, by ensuring that it remains fixed, structural, and affects everyone (outside of the wealth creating private sphere). It is capitalism that, in its late form, threatens difference, by imposing conditions on everyone as being culpable in its activities. Socialism should reinvent itself as the means of ensuring that private interests are protected from the overly powerful impact of the few private interests, that can with seeming impunity, impose collective punishment upon the rest of us.
4/6/10 OBAMA AND THE PARADOX OF HYSTERIA
The outburst of attacks on President Obama over his reaction to the BP oil spill, marks his transition into the hysteric economy of the American consciousness. The response has been a classic hysteric response, excessive, neurotic, and involving a ‘structure’ to use a Lacanian term, where a social structure involving a series of relations with others in a group (his opponents). This blog is not meant as a defence of Obama, who may well be rationally and non hysterically criticized for his response to the disaster. What is interesting for me is that this seems to the moment where Obama is carried over completely into the hysteric’s universe.
The hysteric position is one of a question, according to Lacan. The question in this case is, essentially, ‘Is Obama a big government tyrant, smashing the liberty of American’s, or a weak woolly Liberal unable to defend us from the threats we face?’ The question is an impasse, and so the hysteric holds a paradox, the answer is both. Are the terms mutually exclusive? Yes. On the one Obama is the worst kind of State interventionist; a Socialist, intent on interfering in everything. The hysteric critic thinks this is the case with the BP oil spill. And indeed, Obama has involved the government in response. But the reason why the problem has not been resolved, is put down to this co-opted responsibility. On the other hand, Obama has not done enough, he has not used the power of government to fix things, he seems too distant, too detached. The Hysteric holds both of these opinions to be true, and the impasse of this paradox is what drives the hysteric’s neurosis on and on.
This kind of hysteria is nothing new, the hysteric logic is at work in many places, such as with the immigrant, who on the one hand is the lazy outsider, only here to take what the can and given nothing back, a parasite, and on the other hand, as a productive threat, the hard worker, who can out compete the natives and undermine our right to be lazy and demanding. The rational argument is to point out that these two positions, held by the hysteric, are contradictory, is never listened to, the hysteric is driven by this impasse, deeper into their hysteria, a spot they can not scrub clean. The rational counter argument asks them to give up their hysteria, but as the hysteria is a symptom of something deeper, a desire orientated towards the other, this does not work.
Obama’s immediate predecessor, George W Bush was the perfect example of the hysteric logic of paradox. The left held to two seemingly universal truths about Bush junior, on the one hand, he was a clown, a bungling idiot, unable to speak with dignity or thoughtfulness. On the other hand, he was a Machiavellian demagogue manipulating America into a war for dastardly reasons, the cold calculating and sublime intelligence of the figure of the conspiracy theory. The hysteric position may indeed contain shades of truth, but it is a fragmented truth at best. The hysteric position, that, while it seems exhausting, is a response that allows for the Other to be maintained, fixed forever on a paradoxical space, around which it is possible to orientate oneself. Hysteria is the price to pay to have the kind of engagement with the other that the subject wants, an excess, Obama is both these things, both bad, therefore Obama is excessively bad, and I am justified in opposing him, and defining myself in opposition to him. This outbursts of hysteria will frame Obama’s presidency unless something happens to break the paradox, and this does not seem likely.
31/5/10 WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT ISRAEL-PALESTINE?
The latest batch of violence in the Middle East has forced us to once again return to our well formed positions of pro Palestinians and Pro Israeli. Roughly speaking, right winger’s (excluding the far right) support Israel staunchly, and the Left supports the Palestinians. So is it time for a fresh bout of warfare? Not amongst the actual combatants those whose lives are actually caught up in the conflict, but the rest of us, we decadent Westerner’s playing a great ideological game of tug of war of how best to appropriate the conflict.
Yet again, I should say. Why do we care about so much about this one conflict? I do not mean to be cold. It is a long running and costly conflict, I know. We can see apparent injustice and desperation. But hold the altruistic tears back for a moment, and look at the real motivation for much of the outrage (on both sides) by those of us not really embroiled in it, the truth of the Israeli-Palestinian for us, is that it is an ideological commodity, ready and waiting for consumption whenever a trigger is pulled.
What do I mean? first off, there are other conflicts, trouble spots, human rights violations, all over the world, but they don’t quite match up to this one in terms of how much we care. Even though they may be just as long lived, more strategically important, and afflicting more people in more oppressive, violent and destructive ways. But we all think we know where we are with this conflict. Yet look at most positions, and the ideological appropriation is obvious. The reality of the situation is an excess, an excess of justification that is hard to disagree with, in short, everyone is right, if you are being fair.
The obvious retort is that this is just relativism, and it’s a cop out. But I am just being realistic, you may favour one justification over the other, but the truth is that you will not win a war of justification outright, justification is so often incommensurable, all an obsession with it will lead to is such a deadlock. The proper orientation should be that, we need to stop fetishizing the justifications, which in reality, is too easy, and to make genuine progress, if that is even possible, we need to get into the detail, try and use a realistic pragmatism, instead of a smug and often patronizing assumption of moral superiority. Is the truth something like this, that Israel is better for those on the Left, if it is the master signifier of Imperialism, Militarism, capitalism, greed, etc, where as for the right, its too easy and too convenient to see Israel as being a bastion of Democracy, a repressed people blighted by anti Semitic barbarians? Too many are happy with these images, why should they want to change them?
There may be grains of truth here, in these images, but it serves my point, how easy is it to justify a viewpoint? I do not mean to be a relativist here. The point is to suspend justification for time being, it has got us no where so far (but I suspect that this is what many are happy with, we who are not involved, we have a cause, something to indulge our own political instincts in) instead, lets look at the harsh reality of things. Can we do that? Can you set aside your self indulgent outrage, or you pathetic apologist efforts, and try and get closer to the reality? Wittgenstein’s therapeutic approach to philosophy is interesting here, where philosophical problems are not taken at face value, they are suspended, analysed and in some cases dissolved, done away with as not being real philosophical problems at all. Can we do the same? Can we look at the questions we ask about this conflict and unravel our own ideological appropriation and assumptions, and set aside the pleasure that is gained from those outside the area in revelling in what should not really be problematic at all? This is needed, I think, before we set about the task of solving the Israeli-Palestinian properly, we must purge our ideological indulgence before we can be in a position to help people solve the long term problems.
29/5/10 GOING NUCLEAR? WHY NOT?
The argument for Nuclear power to be used to fill the gap’ of future energy needs, as well as reducing carbon emissions is interesting. Realistically, it is a viable option, and many leading environmentalists (James Lovelock is the obvious example) argue that it is a vital part of meeting the challenges of climate change. And yet it is met with a seemingly irrational hatred from many on the left of politics, and many pro environmentalists. Why? I believe that it is on this issue, that we see most starkly, the real motivation of popular environmentalism, and the irrationality behind much of it.
Like I have said, many level headed environmentalists are serious about Nuclear power. It’s not perfect though. It’s expensive, and potentially dangerous. But this should only serve as a cautious point to bear in mind, it’s not a knockdown argument. Are the effects of Chernobyl greater than the effects of fossil fuels on the environment? Of course not. And that’s with Nuclear power ’failing’ to function properly, a matter of regulation and maintenance. But the damage of fossil fuels on the environment (acid rain, carbon dioxide, health effects such as asthma etc) happen as an inevitable side effect of its use. Of course, Environmentalists want renewables to replace both. But these are expensive, and potentially environmentally damaging (in some cases, such as tidal ranges, damaging wild life etc). But the real ‘danger’ is that renewable energy is unreliable, and by itself, would lead to energy shortages (the danger being social, economic etc). So while Nuclear power is not perfect, and it is right to remain cautious, it certainly has a bigger part to play. But why oppose it flatly?
Could it possibly be that, on our current conception of Nature, we assume their to be something ‘unnatural’ about harnessing the power of the atom, as opposed to harnessing the power of the wind? There is a kind of Heideggerianism at work here. The perversion of Nuclear science is bad, it assumes nature to be reducible to soulless atoms to be harnessed at will. I don’t accept this argument (see previous articles for why). Put very simply, I don’t see why the wind is anymore natural than an atom, on an ontological level. But then the wind can’t irradiate a city, you might say (but what of hurricanes?) Fair enough, but using Nuclear power is simply doing something with the possibilities nature offers us. And we should take it. It’s a similar point to GM foods, we assume that nature is a pristine system, that must be preserved by dealing with it solely on its own terms. There is some wisdom here, because not investigating the possibilities of an action could be harmful to the systems upon which we depend. But it is also erroneous as a universal law.
Firstly, we don’t accept nature’s terms on the level of disease, we do not live in caves either. We always work within the possibility of nature even in such seemingly abstract sciences as Nuclear physics and genetics. The problem is that we disavow nature, as it really is (dangerous, plastic, perverse) in favour of a wholesome, static benevolent picture post card nature that is the real illusion, the commodity that many populist environmentalists are happy to buy and sell, and let drive their politics (I am thinking of Chris Hune the Lib Dem energy secretary) . But we should not take them too seriously, because the important point to bear in mind, is there are no easy answers with this, our civilization as a force of nature in its own right, presents numerous risks to itself and the rest of nature as it presents itself. And even with its risk, Nuclear power will be a viable way to help maintain the patterns of nature that our civilization depends upon, while maintaining the ability of that civilization to continue to efficiently function.
24TH MAY 2010 ‘IT’S ARTIFICIAL LIFE, BUT NOT AS WE THOUGHT IT’
The recent revelation that Dr Venter has created ‘synthetic life’ was met with a mix of fear, anger, and amazement. It is of course a great technical achievement, and the potential benefits are profound. Set aside the environmental hysteria for a moment (a look at the past article is relevant here, the rush to assume this ‘artificial life’ threatens a pristine nature is the source of this hysteria). What is interesting here, is the materialist triumph, mankind has succeeded in simulating the chemistry of life. It is however, not the kind of artificial life we wanted. It’s not a machine. It is an ‘assemblage’ but not an attempt to mimic the workings of a human brain. Venter’s work is of course, not done in the field of artificial intelligence. But it by steps it quite neatly. What we should be doing is not a bottom down attempt to create artificial life, that is, focusing on recreating the complexity of our own neurology. Instead, to really understand life, and how it generates intelligence, among other features (language emotion consciousness). Start with the small, and relatively simple.
Look at what is created as an assemblage, not an ‘essence’. Something that operates in relation to other assemblages, interacting, transmitting, involved in various economies. The error of cognitivism is to reduce consciousness to bare material states, instead of understanding the complex interaction of the materiality of the human being with external elements, and insteaad assume that all that exists is a set of neurons and their stimuli.
On an ontological level, I am not I conflict with cognitivism as such, but it fails to understand what is unique about intelligent life, that can not be understood in the metaphor of ‘computers and software’ that is, following laws and rules in ‘computation of information’ but rather, as complexes of assemblages interacting with each other, as well as other life forms, the environment, culture language etc. This complexity can not be rendered by commands, or simply building complexity. Most cognitivist approaches are built on this flawed premise, one we all too readily accept, we all seem to think that, essentially, the brain is just a computer, albeit a ’super computer’ and now we have defeated idealism as a credible philosophical position (or at least we think we have) then there is no barrier to eventually recreating what the mind is, artificially.
Not that it is de facto impossible of course. Just that this assumption may explain why cognitivism is a failed discipline, despite the effort, ingenuity and money spent on it. Instead of trying to create robots that not only resemble humans, but resemble the way they think, we should abandon the approach altogether. Instead of fooling around with expensive mimics, we should follow Venter’s lead: look at the evolutionary development of life, in relation to external elements, from the simple to the complex. Looking at how assemblages that exist to do certain ‘jobs’ and produce certain effects, is the step forward.. Perhaps we should create synthetic life, before we assume we can create synthetic minds? Rid our selves of the old metaphysical imports, of what a mind is, and in the process, put it back into nature, where it always already was?
19/5/10 PAPER TIGER’S AND VIOLENCE
The latest bout of British Airways strike action has been cancelled due to some legal technicality. The decision has been met with apathy and relief by most people. Hardly surprising in an age where Unionised action is seen as a lumbering dinosaur. We no longer believe that the class system that seemed so integral to the proper functioning of Unionised Action is any longer applicable. There no longer exists a sense of shared fraternity with other members of a given class, given the vanishing of the proletariat. Strike actions seemed doomed before they begin, we instinctively believe that they are lacking something vital to be able to defeat the prevailing order, or overturn it. Partly, this is due to a level of encouraged self absorption and decadence, we demand that nothing interferes with the smooth running of our lives, disruption is unacceptable to us, why should we care about ‘greedy’ cabin crew? But this common sentiment in part, is enforced by the sense of pointlessness and futility of Unionised action: that it lacks something that might make it successful.
This something, is a charge, a kind of violence. A certain type of revolutionary violence, that is not quantifiable, that is unpredictable. The kind of violence that can force the rupture from the prevailing symbolic order. This violence is the charge that made possible histories great revolutions, of America, Russia, France. Yet today, any movement or organisation must, of its own accord, castrate itself, remove itself from this violent potential, even in its very genesis. It is not simply a violence in the form of destroying or killing, for this violence still exists today, Anarchist for example, who are an expression not of ‘revolutionary violence’ but of a primal ‘Id evil’ (to use the psychoanalytical description) which exists due to, and in response to, the possibilities of the existing order, as a kind of illicit pleasure, made possible by it, but does not seek anything beyond the short term fulfilment of this pleasure or of a kind of release. Anarchism, in its violence, is a symptom of capitalism, a kind of extreme hobby, a ‘Clockwork Orange’ type excess that serves to allow certain individuals to carry on functioning within capitalism. Though at its extremes, it is not tolerated, more sedate forms are, because it serves as the perfect foil to revolutionary violence, (which is dangerous) by allowing a castrated violence against the system to express itself, but not to seriously, so it may not debilitate the system in the process.
Revolutionary movements today have to surrender their violence at the door. Agree to act in a way that is not seriously threatening (how often do we here unions say they do not seek to seriously harm the company, or its profit margins?). The extent of this ‘Paper Tiger’ effect stretches to politics also. Think of the recent ‘take back parliament’ movement seeking electoral reform. It explicitly states its intention to not be ‘non violent’. This means that the moment it entered into violence, by some excess or anarchic action, it would lose its efficacy. This is in part, due to the lack of the possibility for genuine revolutionary violence to emerge, because movements are always already ‘quantified’ and castrated, they seek resolution within the order, not complete rupture from it. Too often, violence is seen solely as Id evil. When this emerges, it serves to undermine the whole movement, and its reinforces its castration, by ‘forcing’ an acknowledgement that things have gone too far and need to stop. Think of the recent violence in Greece, where, the tragic death of ordinary bank workers, forced the violence to subside, ending the surge of the protesters, showing how far they were willing to go, and no further. This pathetic violence against the bank workers, showed the very lack of revolutionary violence the protestors needed to bring about what they wanted, but never really had it seems. In the end, they were just another Paper Tiger..
13/5/10 ‘ConDem Pact: Liberalism as a vanishing Mediator?’
The term ‘Vanishing Mediator’ applies to a concept/idea/political discourse that serves to mediate two opposing elements. At the point of transition from one element to the other, the mediator, well, vanishes. Could the ConDem pact act as such a mediator from the pre-existing ‘progressive’ majority, towards a full blown new Conservatism? What reason would we have to assume this? Firstly, we can characterise that, if the Conservative share of the vote was about 37% and putting aside the BNP, and nationalist parties of Northern Ireland (that operate in an almost independent political world) then we can say that the majority of the electorate is ‘progressive’ or ‘left of centre’. The right has struggled since Thatcher, and even now, it tends to portray itself as a different kind of ‘progressive right of centre’ Cameron is often characterised as a ‘social conservative’ after all. But are we now, through this new ConDem government on the road away from the left of centre for good? A journey that the Liberal Democrats are facilitating, destined to eventually disappear?
The situation has an eerie feel to it for many on the left and the right. What are we witnessing? The Liberal Democrats are a small element in a coalition government, the party of the ‘unsullied left’ that in its current incarnation has never known power. Its influence, its discourse, has been informed by this ‘staying out of it’ giving them a unique position between the old let/right divide. They offered a different kind of Leftist politics. Now they are in serious danger of losing their political substance, offering it up (if the coalition is successful) to a new Conservatism that has a social democratic conscience, that accepts the need for superficial liberalism (equality transparency) but still maintains a right of centre sting, of Euro scepticism, elitism, and a suspicion of the welfare state. On these areas, with the exception of Europe, many of the Liberal Democrats (the orange book Liberals) seem to actively support the Conservatives on an ideological level. The conservative party will learn the lesson of maintaining a social face, a lesson Cameron was already pushing (the bog society ring fencing the NHS budget).
The Liberal Democrats may then, be surplus to requirements, on the road to a new Conservatism that maintains its roots, but hides them behind the veneer of an imported Liberalism. Is it not the case that we have the perfect a perfect partnership in the ‘obscene roughness’ of conservatism and the ‘hysterical’ idealism of the Liberal Democrats? It reminds me of the South Park episode, ‘I’m a Little Bit Country’ where the town was split between the right wing nuts who were pro war, and the Left wing ‘pussies’ who were against it at all costs. The ‘synthesis’ is achieved at the end, when Cartman tells the town about what the founding father’s intended for the emerging American nation, was that it be both pro war, and against, that the right wing needed the left to take the coarseness off of it, and to seem as though the country had some sanity in it, and did not appear too aggressive. Likewise, the left wing pussies needed the right wing to defend them, the harsh reality of war was dealt with, by them, because without them, they ‘would be taken down in a second’. On realisation, the once great opponents enter into a sing off involving a medley of Rock and roll and country music…
One of the most interesting aspect of the financial crisis of the last few years, is the way that capitalism has not only maintained it’s ideological hegemony, but actually strengthened it. How has this been possible? After all, capitalism has always been understood as ‘imperfect’ but the ‘best possible system’ nonetheless. It has always been understood to be unfair, but still preferable, because it could be left to its own devices, it was optimised for growth, productivity and profit. This is why democratic governments had tied their own fortunes to its machinations, hoping to benefit from it, by allowing capitalism to function unhindered by the State, which imposed only the minimum levels of control (which capitalism needed, to allow it’s proper functioning). The State hoped to benefit by increased tax revenues, ploughed into welfare, and the public sector, effectively, subsidies, to placate those that were left out of the capitalist bonanza, and who were being offered no substantial stake or role in it. Yet the myth that sustained this position by the State, and effectively allowed capitalism free reign, has been shattered in the wake of financial crash.
Capitalism, left to its own devices, almost destroyed itself. Wealth inequality is rising, welfare is failing, and the public sector is unsustainable in most developed economies. It can no longer be demonstrated de facto that capitalism left unhindered is the best option. After all, the State was forced to save it. And yet, this is the position that we are desperate to return to. Efforts to tame capitalism in regulation, supervision, are already failing, simple tokenism by finance ministers and secretaries to seem tough on capitalists for the sake of placating the public anger over bailouts. But how is capitalism getting away with this? How is it able to not only maintain its hegemony but strengthen it? The tactic deployed is to agree to its own failures. The pubic sentiment is matched by the capitalists themselves, who cry out for someone to regulate them a little, just as the plead for their governments for bail outs and assurances. The sheer gall of capitalism is laid bare, it admits that the old beliefs about free market based unhindered capitalism are as bankrupt as the system itself, but still, so dependent are we on this system, that we must try and continue to believe, regardless.
We are asked to believe in a myth. This is difficult to do, yet again. For this is not the first time we have been asked to buy back into the myth. Hence the lack of confidence in the system right no,. but over time, we will no doubt succumb to the myth once more. But the ever present risk of disaster that will take us all down with it, means that capitalism is able to strengthen its grip: ‘We agree that the system is flawed, but if we don’t renew it, the effects will be far worse’ we can not abandon or even rethink capitalism, not right now, when it is so weak, yet so essential to social stability and prosperity. Crisis may well be present for a long time, as it has yet to disappear.
The recent ‘stress testing’ of European banks is evidence of this. The tests themselves tell us the answer that is not ideal, but the right answer nonetheless. Things are bad, but not as bad as they could be. The way the stress was applied, the very test itself, was engineered to render this fact: the system is still viable, there is reason for increased confidence, but still too weak to take to task or try and reform. The best result possible, capitalism always gets its cake, eats it, then gets you to pay for it. This stress testing is the perfect example for what capitalism is today, weakened in it’s reality, but strengthened ideologically. It’s position cemented, despite its failures. It is immune though, even to common sense, even if say, a politician, economist or philosopher, managed to develop a system that seems to fix the failures and excesses of capitalism, it will remain a fantasy, the capitalists would lining up to congratulate this genius, but: ‘‘you make a good argument, but it can’t be implemented right now, the future is too uncertain, the transition would be too costly, someday though!’’ for how long shalll we hear this?
16/7/10 UNVEILLING: RESSENTIMENT WHY BAN MUSLIM DRESS?
What is the motivation behind attempts by the French government to ban the Veil and Muslim head scarf from public places? A right wing attempt to punish anyone different? A staunch defence of Liberal Secularism in the face of Islamic fundamentalism? This is how the debate is drawn, but things are more complex than this.
In part, it is a band aid on a gaping wound, the failure of European multiculturalism. The measures under consideration are unlikely to be effectively enforced, they may not even pass, as they enter a legal minefield, even if the French Parliament ratifies the ban, the European courts could well overturn it, or negate its effectiveness. The whole thing seems to be about a matter of principle: What unites France? It’s Secular Republicanism, and what undermines it? Radical religious difference and intolerance, and repression. The old debate comes to a head, where should the line of tolerance be drawn? What should the limit of the tolerance for those that are intolerant be? This issue, is a difficult one to address, because the limits as they are drawn, are always ‘groundless’ in any objective legitimacy, they are, although always disavowed, arbitrary, based on irrational, pre-liberal positions. These kinds of debates are always difficult, because they expose the ground of Liberal secularist tolerance, as being ‘ungrounded’ by any rational principle, the ‘problem of the axiom’ is applicable here. ‘Why is this tolerated and not that?’ . This awkwardness is unwelcome, but it in part, the problem comes down to a differing French and Anglo Saxon views of ‘liberty‘.
Following Rousseau, so influential in the formation of French political thought, and in the intellectual formation of French Republicanism, one must be ‘forced to be free’ in the French case. The Muslim Women in question, are posed as examples of repressed and enslaved individuals, who must come to realize that even if they believe they freely choose to cover up, they are in fact shunning their freedom, their responsibility to be free subjects in public life. The system, which forces its subjects to be free, demand that this sign of their repression in a system which denies their equality, must not be tolerated. The French have less of a problem than the Anglo Saxon world in this respect, what must not be ‘tolerated’ is that which prevents us from being universally equal subjects, bound by a common fraternity of secularism, that forces us to accept this reality of equality.
For Anglo Saxon nations, Liberty is the right to self determination, within a common law limit. As nothing in common law can find any issue with Muslim dress, then it is permitted, even if not desirable by the majority. Any attempts to enforce this uniformity is seen as an authoritarian excess, an infringement on our right to choose, which breaks the organic nature of liberty, that is, if this can be banned, then what prevents other things from being banned? The Libertarian undertones are clear, that any individual should be free from the excesses of authority, being ‘forced’ to do anything but adhere to Common Law, is fundamentally wrong, and ungrounded. This difference is telling, on just why, in Modern France, such a ban is being considered. But the issue is yet more complex than this.
Is it not the case that the hysteria, over the Other of the Muslim, as fanatic, as fundamentalist, authoritarian, is a disavowed fantasy that the French themselves wish to indulge in? a repressed desire they in fact wish to share? They project onto the Other, exactly what they lack, but wish to possess. A classic example of Nietzsche’s concept of ‘ressentiment’. The French are acting in a fundamentalist way, with a fanatical devotion to the ideal of Secularism, and using the authority of ‘enforced liberty’ to justify their desires. The undertones of racism and intolerance are undoubtedly at work, to some respect, these people can not be tolerated, they who dare to think differently than most French citizens, to resist the offerings of universal Republicanism, that demands secularism in public as a necessary requirement.
Unacceptable difference, because it dares to be different in a way that cannot be accepted precisely because of those irrational grounds discussed. Attempting to understand this debate in terms of rational discussions on the limits of tolerance jumps the gun, we should ask whether or not we are forcing out differences we just do not like, for irrational, racist, or bigoted reasons, because we enjoy upsetting those who we assume, hate us. We should ask, if Muslim dress is necessarily a derogatory and repressive symbol. And asking why we are targeting this group: is it because they have scorned our gifts? Because they don’t accept our way, the nice way, so we have to force them to accept them, under the pretence of the Law? I suspect this is, in reality is the case.
10/710 BLOOMING ECK, ITS THAT ZIZEK!
Zizek’s appearance on Newsnight this week was a welcome surprise for all those interested in his philosophy. God knows a quick peruse among many of the articles, and blogs on here, and the debt to his thought is pretty obvious. But Zizek is far from perfect, of course, and one of his main failings, for me personally, is not a theoretical one, but his dogmatic position of engaging with popular culture and the media regradless of how approriate it is. While not a theoretical flaw, it does lead to a tendency to engage with those who just do not get him, the result is he does not come across as important and prescient as he is.
Zizek turns up to anything it seems. An enthusiasm that is part of his appeal, a man that won’t shut up, which is a great attribute when you are as brilliant as he can be. His appearance coincided with (yet) another new book, ‘Living in the End Times’ which he failed to plug, rather commendably, instead using the brief time slot he had to answer the slightly idiotic questions posed to him. As usual, he was portrayed as the ‘Elvis of Cultural Theory’ a title that is not really all that helpful, even if it is one he does little to dissuade, as it appears on most of the backs of his books after all. He is portrayed as the eccentric Communist, a half truth at best, Zizek seems to play on this image ironically most of the time, but then it can't really be said he is not serious, for him Marx is no footnote or name to be dropped to show off his intellectual credntials. But it leaves the questioners bemused in interviews such as this, how can anyone support communism, after its record in the 20th century?
Well Zizek doesn’t on these grounds defend Marx or communism, and his work offers a more insightful analysis of the 20th century's failure of communism than perhaps any other Philosopher alive. Just as he did, in the Newsnight interview, which meant, yet again, he had little time to articulate his position regarding the crisis that face us as a civilization. Problem number two is, that Zizek is prone to repeating himself, a lot. This is not unusual in academia, but it is in popular culture, his books have too much of what has been said before by him in earlier efforts, you get the feeling he should just put it all in one book and be done with it. Ironically for a supposed Communist, he is the most valuable philosophical commodity on the market right now, and the purity of his thought is cut and distilled like heroin, and I suspect his latest effort will be much the same as his recent works in this respect.
The fact that he defiantly sticks to communism is a virtue though, he does not fall into the capitalist ideology he so succinctly critiques, by adopting some anaemic liberalism or soft socialism. He is correct in arguing that the resources of Marxism, and psycho-analysis as well as German idealism, which are awkwardly shunned from the current liberal intellectual hegemony, is a sign of their importance, why, when capitalism subsumes everything, does it leave these traditions out in the cold? The tools of Marx can still be deployed efffectively. In fact, Marx may be more vital than ever, as Zizek stated in his interview, and as he as stated before, the struggle of today is the ‘struggle of the Commons’. In this respect, Zizek comes close to the likes of Phillip Blond, who obviously, pales in comparison, but is important as a prime thinker of New Conservatives such as David Cameron, we do still think in terms of the community, Zizek's example, was on Global warming. and yet, we bar, irrationally, communism from the debate. Why?
Zizek’s analysis goes further though, and despite the apparent anachronistic nature of communism regarding today’s problems, it keeps open that space, or site, which is not already a site of late capitalism in disguise. Which is why we must not embrace communism cynically, because in that sense, it has already been subsumed by prevailing ideology, we must instead, take it seriously. It almost has a ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ feel to it. We can not escape ideology completely afterall, so the reflexive capacity needed towards a particular ideology, the most pressing, being capitalism right now, is found in adopting the ideological framework of another, its old antagonist, communism. It is the conflict generated by the two that is of interest to us, we do not have to be committed to bringing about a communist Utopia, but we do need to have some avenue open to us, that is not already assimilated into the structure of late capitalism, that poses so many problems to us, economic, ecological, technological etc. It is here where Zizek's work is vital.
4/7/10 WHY THE DEMOCRACY VILLAGE SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN.
The supposed ‘democracy village’ encampment currently occupying Parliament Square, still faces being shut down. The opposition to it is interesting, and is already a sign of how this is not an example of infringement on the right to protest. A right that has been challenged of late, but on grounds of health and safety? A little pathetic, but in a sense, this is surely a good thing. The authorities dare not attempt to challenge the right to protest head on, they must utilize a more subversive strategy, that can only work by our own compliance. Imagine if, for instance, the minimum wage was challenged, would health and safety restrictions keep away thousands from marching on Parliament? would a police crackdown not be it’s own health and safety nightmare? unlikely.
But the truth is, that we on the left, not just the right, should want this village to disappear. Because more often than not, these kind of protesters, are a place holder for the left’s indignation that it feels, but is too busy, lazy or impotent, to act upon. At any rate, these protestors do not represent any significant theoretical insight into the nature of the global system, or effective remedy to it. War is bad, period. Put aside the fact that the Left must, if it is to regain its energy and importance, recognise the role of struggle (which is not the same as war, but may entail some level of non standard resistance) the war they now protest against, the Afghan war, is opposed for the same reasons as the Iraq war was. This simplistic approach is ignorant, and stupid, it is a gross conflation. The war in Afghanistan had justified motives, by any recognised standard in the West. It was fundamentally different to Iraq. But that doesn’t matter to most of these protestors, who speak the same nations and their conflicts in the same breath. Is all war bad? the American War of Independence? the Second World War? Most of the louder opposition to the war in Afghanistan, to the more thoughtful arguments against it, comes from the right. No surprise that the BNP are opposed to it, they belief that Afghanistan is not worth spilling the blood of British soldiers for. Many conservatives agree with them, but offer far better arguments for withdrawal.
Beyond this, it’s a pure leftist indulgence, that represents what is wrong with the left, all its anti conformist activity is just another form of passive conformity, a revolution without revolution. We know, from the outset, that all protests must be peaceful. And we know, even if we disavow our knowledge of it, that it is just an exercise in relieving our tension to the status quo, it won’t actually challenge it. The very form of this protest is indicative of this: they hope to seem as the weak, the helpless, almost inviting eviction to highlight their cause, because they do not know how to push their cause, and make it relevant, off of their own backs. It’s structure is interesting too, a fixed settlement, as regimented and inflexible as the ideology that fuels it, to be a true threat to the system, one must be a Nomad, an inhabitant of the system yes, an affective component, but one that can transgress the framework that forces a sedimentation on us. Free to move, to upset the status quo, in its very geography and topology, this is the key to most successful protests of history, they arise from ‘nowhere’ they can disappear, quickly, but also return quickly, and this is key to there potency. But the Parliament Square protest is allocated its spot, it’s safe, comfortable and harmless, only challenged, not because it is a threat, but because it is an eyesore.
One extra element is missing, violence. We all bought the 1960’s argument that protests can only work, if they agree to be peaceful. The authorities must be the violent aggressor. This is a clear cut example of why we should reject this kind of protest, firstly, it is entirely reactive, the protest’s effectiveness is not generated by it’s own affirmation of its righteousness, or belief in its correctness and justice, it has to allow the authorities to act first. So what happens? usually, the authorities do not rise to the bait, they allow the protest to move to completion, with little resistance, and this serves only to highlight the protests own impotence. What is lacking, is violence. Not simply, the expression of physical violence, but the power to force disruption, to threaten that which should be threatened, or opposed. A violence as a menace. This is what is needed. Failing this, nothing is better than what we have with the Parliament Square protestors, the kind of protests that are forever chained to the logic we have just discussed. If nothing happens, then perhaps, a more authentic resistance can build up, that can really threaten the status quo..
9/6/10 IS SOCIALISM A DIRTY WORD?
It should not surprise us, that in an age in which it seems that socialism as an ideology is once more pertinent, with the bail out of banks, with looming ecological disasters, and economic and social crisis, that it should also become a derogatory term in some parts of our culture of such visceral strength. Taking socialism seriously is seen as being unpatriotic in parts of America, Obama is called a socialist (in extreme cases even a communist) over his health care bill. Yet ironically, it almost seems that those that are critical of him want him to be a bit more of a socialist with regards the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Obama is the perfect example of the bizarre situation we find ourselves in with regards to socialism. On the one hand, it’s seen as discredited ideology, on the other it’s still needed. For what Obama’s problem is, is that he is the wrong kind of socialist, not realising that socialism’s job is now to clean up the mess of the excesses of capitalism. Obama ’didn’t get the memo’ it seems.
But why can’t we move socialism onto the ground of positivity? Why must it’s determination always be negative, reactive? The problem lies in the way socialism is posed: on the grounds of the distinction between the private and the public. Socialism is always portrayed as destroying the creativity and primacy of the private. The private sector, is the ‘engine of wealth creation’ the creative sector of human activity, the ‘real’ of the economy. In truth, we assume that the world is a collection of private interests and communities, units that enter into relations (economic, social, religious, cultural) with each other (Thatcher’s claims that ‘there is no society’ is interesting to bear in mind here). The public sphere is seen as a collection of private interests. For socialism, the cliché is that it tramples these individual private spaces, and forces a uniformity upon them, rendering each as subject to the law of the public space. Inequalities, differences are removed, and what is left is a homogenous and artificial imposition. Of course this is a parody of socialism that needs to be resisted. Because the private space never generates itself as a closed circuit, a sealed economy, it is, in reality, always already a reaction to the public space of the Other.
The public is already in the private, and visa versa. It maybe that a successful socialism will escape these distinctions altogether. But socialism’s supposed destruction of the forces of the private that render capitalism a success are in large part an illusion. Even so, we live in an age where individual elements (such as finance or corporations) have the potential to destroy the security of everyone else’s private interest, this is the great irony we need to bear in mind.
The banking collapse shows, how the rule of private interests following their own interests, risks contagion. So while the benefits of these private interests remains largely in private possession, the risks of their failure affects everyone. So are the activities of BP, and (potentially) those who are involved in genetic sciences. We live in an age of inversed socialism, where we do not have a ’redistribution of wealth’ but a ’redistribution of poverty’ or redistribution of disaster. So the goal should be to realize the hypocrisy of those who defend capitalism on the grounds mentioned. Capitalism is not some defence of private difference, but a means of socializing inequality, by ensuring that it remains fixed, structural, and affects everyone (outside of the wealth creating private sphere). It is capitalism that, in its late form, threatens difference, by imposing conditions on everyone as being culpable in its activities. Socialism should reinvent itself as the means of ensuring that private interests are protected from the overly powerful impact of the few private interests, that can with seeming impunity, impose collective punishment upon the rest of us.
4/6/10 OBAMA AND THE PARADOX OF HYSTERIA
The outburst of attacks on President Obama over his reaction to the BP oil spill, marks his transition into the hysteric economy of the American consciousness. The response has been a classic hysteric response, excessive, neurotic, and involving a ‘structure’ to use a Lacanian term, where a social structure involving a series of relations with others in a group (his opponents). This blog is not meant as a defence of Obama, who may well be rationally and non hysterically criticized for his response to the disaster. What is interesting for me is that this seems to the moment where Obama is carried over completely into the hysteric’s universe.
The hysteric position is one of a question, according to Lacan. The question in this case is, essentially, ‘Is Obama a big government tyrant, smashing the liberty of American’s, or a weak woolly Liberal unable to defend us from the threats we face?’ The question is an impasse, and so the hysteric holds a paradox, the answer is both. Are the terms mutually exclusive? Yes. On the one Obama is the worst kind of State interventionist; a Socialist, intent on interfering in everything. The hysteric critic thinks this is the case with the BP oil spill. And indeed, Obama has involved the government in response. But the reason why the problem has not been resolved, is put down to this co-opted responsibility. On the other hand, Obama has not done enough, he has not used the power of government to fix things, he seems too distant, too detached. The Hysteric holds both of these opinions to be true, and the impasse of this paradox is what drives the hysteric’s neurosis on and on.
This kind of hysteria is nothing new, the hysteric logic is at work in many places, such as with the immigrant, who on the one hand is the lazy outsider, only here to take what the can and given nothing back, a parasite, and on the other hand, as a productive threat, the hard worker, who can out compete the natives and undermine our right to be lazy and demanding. The rational argument is to point out that these two positions, held by the hysteric, are contradictory, is never listened to, the hysteric is driven by this impasse, deeper into their hysteria, a spot they can not scrub clean. The rational counter argument asks them to give up their hysteria, but as the hysteria is a symptom of something deeper, a desire orientated towards the other, this does not work.
Obama’s immediate predecessor, George W Bush was the perfect example of the hysteric logic of paradox. The left held to two seemingly universal truths about Bush junior, on the one hand, he was a clown, a bungling idiot, unable to speak with dignity or thoughtfulness. On the other hand, he was a Machiavellian demagogue manipulating America into a war for dastardly reasons, the cold calculating and sublime intelligence of the figure of the conspiracy theory. The hysteric position may indeed contain shades of truth, but it is a fragmented truth at best. The hysteric position, that, while it seems exhausting, is a response that allows for the Other to be maintained, fixed forever on a paradoxical space, around which it is possible to orientate oneself. Hysteria is the price to pay to have the kind of engagement with the other that the subject wants, an excess, Obama is both these things, both bad, therefore Obama is excessively bad, and I am justified in opposing him, and defining myself in opposition to him. This outbursts of hysteria will frame Obama’s presidency unless something happens to break the paradox, and this does not seem likely.
31/5/10 WHY DO WE CARE SO MUCH ABOUT ISRAEL-PALESTINE?
The latest batch of violence in the Middle East has forced us to once again return to our well formed positions of pro Palestinians and Pro Israeli. Roughly speaking, right winger’s (excluding the far right) support Israel staunchly, and the Left supports the Palestinians. So is it time for a fresh bout of warfare? Not amongst the actual combatants those whose lives are actually caught up in the conflict, but the rest of us, we decadent Westerner’s playing a great ideological game of tug of war of how best to appropriate the conflict.
Yet again, I should say. Why do we care about so much about this one conflict? I do not mean to be cold. It is a long running and costly conflict, I know. We can see apparent injustice and desperation. But hold the altruistic tears back for a moment, and look at the real motivation for much of the outrage (on both sides) by those of us not really embroiled in it, the truth of the Israeli-Palestinian for us, is that it is an ideological commodity, ready and waiting for consumption whenever a trigger is pulled.
What do I mean? first off, there are other conflicts, trouble spots, human rights violations, all over the world, but they don’t quite match up to this one in terms of how much we care. Even though they may be just as long lived, more strategically important, and afflicting more people in more oppressive, violent and destructive ways. But we all think we know where we are with this conflict. Yet look at most positions, and the ideological appropriation is obvious. The reality of the situation is an excess, an excess of justification that is hard to disagree with, in short, everyone is right, if you are being fair.
The obvious retort is that this is just relativism, and it’s a cop out. But I am just being realistic, you may favour one justification over the other, but the truth is that you will not win a war of justification outright, justification is so often incommensurable, all an obsession with it will lead to is such a deadlock. The proper orientation should be that, we need to stop fetishizing the justifications, which in reality, is too easy, and to make genuine progress, if that is even possible, we need to get into the detail, try and use a realistic pragmatism, instead of a smug and often patronizing assumption of moral superiority. Is the truth something like this, that Israel is better for those on the Left, if it is the master signifier of Imperialism, Militarism, capitalism, greed, etc, where as for the right, its too easy and too convenient to see Israel as being a bastion of Democracy, a repressed people blighted by anti Semitic barbarians? Too many are happy with these images, why should they want to change them?
There may be grains of truth here, in these images, but it serves my point, how easy is it to justify a viewpoint? I do not mean to be a relativist here. The point is to suspend justification for time being, it has got us no where so far (but I suspect that this is what many are happy with, we who are not involved, we have a cause, something to indulge our own political instincts in) instead, lets look at the harsh reality of things. Can we do that? Can you set aside your self indulgent outrage, or you pathetic apologist efforts, and try and get closer to the reality? Wittgenstein’s therapeutic approach to philosophy is interesting here, where philosophical problems are not taken at face value, they are suspended, analysed and in some cases dissolved, done away with as not being real philosophical problems at all. Can we do the same? Can we look at the questions we ask about this conflict and unravel our own ideological appropriation and assumptions, and set aside the pleasure that is gained from those outside the area in revelling in what should not really be problematic at all? This is needed, I think, before we set about the task of solving the Israeli-Palestinian properly, we must purge our ideological indulgence before we can be in a position to help people solve the long term problems.
29/5/10 GOING NUCLEAR? WHY NOT?
The argument for Nuclear power to be used to fill the gap’ of future energy needs, as well as reducing carbon emissions is interesting. Realistically, it is a viable option, and many leading environmentalists (James Lovelock is the obvious example) argue that it is a vital part of meeting the challenges of climate change. And yet it is met with a seemingly irrational hatred from many on the left of politics, and many pro environmentalists. Why? I believe that it is on this issue, that we see most starkly, the real motivation of popular environmentalism, and the irrationality behind much of it.
Like I have said, many level headed environmentalists are serious about Nuclear power. It’s not perfect though. It’s expensive, and potentially dangerous. But this should only serve as a cautious point to bear in mind, it’s not a knockdown argument. Are the effects of Chernobyl greater than the effects of fossil fuels on the environment? Of course not. And that’s with Nuclear power ’failing’ to function properly, a matter of regulation and maintenance. But the damage of fossil fuels on the environment (acid rain, carbon dioxide, health effects such as asthma etc) happen as an inevitable side effect of its use. Of course, Environmentalists want renewables to replace both. But these are expensive, and potentially environmentally damaging (in some cases, such as tidal ranges, damaging wild life etc). But the real ‘danger’ is that renewable energy is unreliable, and by itself, would lead to energy shortages (the danger being social, economic etc). So while Nuclear power is not perfect, and it is right to remain cautious, it certainly has a bigger part to play. But why oppose it flatly?
Could it possibly be that, on our current conception of Nature, we assume their to be something ‘unnatural’ about harnessing the power of the atom, as opposed to harnessing the power of the wind? There is a kind of Heideggerianism at work here. The perversion of Nuclear science is bad, it assumes nature to be reducible to soulless atoms to be harnessed at will. I don’t accept this argument (see previous articles for why). Put very simply, I don’t see why the wind is anymore natural than an atom, on an ontological level. But then the wind can’t irradiate a city, you might say (but what of hurricanes?) Fair enough, but using Nuclear power is simply doing something with the possibilities nature offers us. And we should take it. It’s a similar point to GM foods, we assume that nature is a pristine system, that must be preserved by dealing with it solely on its own terms. There is some wisdom here, because not investigating the possibilities of an action could be harmful to the systems upon which we depend. But it is also erroneous as a universal law.
Firstly, we don’t accept nature’s terms on the level of disease, we do not live in caves either. We always work within the possibility of nature even in such seemingly abstract sciences as Nuclear physics and genetics. The problem is that we disavow nature, as it really is (dangerous, plastic, perverse) in favour of a wholesome, static benevolent picture post card nature that is the real illusion, the commodity that many populist environmentalists are happy to buy and sell, and let drive their politics (I am thinking of Chris Hune the Lib Dem energy secretary) . But we should not take them too seriously, because the important point to bear in mind, is there are no easy answers with this, our civilization as a force of nature in its own right, presents numerous risks to itself and the rest of nature as it presents itself. And even with its risk, Nuclear power will be a viable way to help maintain the patterns of nature that our civilization depends upon, while maintaining the ability of that civilization to continue to efficiently function.
24TH MAY 2010 ‘IT’S ARTIFICIAL LIFE, BUT NOT AS WE THOUGHT IT’
The recent revelation that Dr Venter has created ‘synthetic life’ was met with a mix of fear, anger, and amazement. It is of course a great technical achievement, and the potential benefits are profound. Set aside the environmental hysteria for a moment (a look at the past article is relevant here, the rush to assume this ‘artificial life’ threatens a pristine nature is the source of this hysteria). What is interesting here, is the materialist triumph, mankind has succeeded in simulating the chemistry of life. It is however, not the kind of artificial life we wanted. It’s not a machine. It is an ‘assemblage’ but not an attempt to mimic the workings of a human brain. Venter’s work is of course, not done in the field of artificial intelligence. But it by steps it quite neatly. What we should be doing is not a bottom down attempt to create artificial life, that is, focusing on recreating the complexity of our own neurology. Instead, to really understand life, and how it generates intelligence, among other features (language emotion consciousness). Start with the small, and relatively simple.
Look at what is created as an assemblage, not an ‘essence’. Something that operates in relation to other assemblages, interacting, transmitting, involved in various economies. The error of cognitivism is to reduce consciousness to bare material states, instead of understanding the complex interaction of the materiality of the human being with external elements, and insteaad assume that all that exists is a set of neurons and their stimuli.
On an ontological level, I am not I conflict with cognitivism as such, but it fails to understand what is unique about intelligent life, that can not be understood in the metaphor of ‘computers and software’ that is, following laws and rules in ‘computation of information’ but rather, as complexes of assemblages interacting with each other, as well as other life forms, the environment, culture language etc. This complexity can not be rendered by commands, or simply building complexity. Most cognitivist approaches are built on this flawed premise, one we all too readily accept, we all seem to think that, essentially, the brain is just a computer, albeit a ’super computer’ and now we have defeated idealism as a credible philosophical position (or at least we think we have) then there is no barrier to eventually recreating what the mind is, artificially.
Not that it is de facto impossible of course. Just that this assumption may explain why cognitivism is a failed discipline, despite the effort, ingenuity and money spent on it. Instead of trying to create robots that not only resemble humans, but resemble the way they think, we should abandon the approach altogether. Instead of fooling around with expensive mimics, we should follow Venter’s lead: look at the evolutionary development of life, in relation to external elements, from the simple to the complex. Looking at how assemblages that exist to do certain ‘jobs’ and produce certain effects, is the step forward.. Perhaps we should create synthetic life, before we assume we can create synthetic minds? Rid our selves of the old metaphysical imports, of what a mind is, and in the process, put it back into nature, where it always already was?
19/5/10 PAPER TIGER’S AND VIOLENCE
The latest bout of British Airways strike action has been cancelled due to some legal technicality. The decision has been met with apathy and relief by most people. Hardly surprising in an age where Unionised action is seen as a lumbering dinosaur. We no longer believe that the class system that seemed so integral to the proper functioning of Unionised Action is any longer applicable. There no longer exists a sense of shared fraternity with other members of a given class, given the vanishing of the proletariat. Strike actions seemed doomed before they begin, we instinctively believe that they are lacking something vital to be able to defeat the prevailing order, or overturn it. Partly, this is due to a level of encouraged self absorption and decadence, we demand that nothing interferes with the smooth running of our lives, disruption is unacceptable to us, why should we care about ‘greedy’ cabin crew? But this common sentiment in part, is enforced by the sense of pointlessness and futility of Unionised action: that it lacks something that might make it successful.
This something, is a charge, a kind of violence. A certain type of revolutionary violence, that is not quantifiable, that is unpredictable. The kind of violence that can force the rupture from the prevailing symbolic order. This violence is the charge that made possible histories great revolutions, of America, Russia, France. Yet today, any movement or organisation must, of its own accord, castrate itself, remove itself from this violent potential, even in its very genesis. It is not simply a violence in the form of destroying or killing, for this violence still exists today, Anarchist for example, who are an expression not of ‘revolutionary violence’ but of a primal ‘Id evil’ (to use the psychoanalytical description) which exists due to, and in response to, the possibilities of the existing order, as a kind of illicit pleasure, made possible by it, but does not seek anything beyond the short term fulfilment of this pleasure or of a kind of release. Anarchism, in its violence, is a symptom of capitalism, a kind of extreme hobby, a ‘Clockwork Orange’ type excess that serves to allow certain individuals to carry on functioning within capitalism. Though at its extremes, it is not tolerated, more sedate forms are, because it serves as the perfect foil to revolutionary violence, (which is dangerous) by allowing a castrated violence against the system to express itself, but not to seriously, so it may not debilitate the system in the process.
Revolutionary movements today have to surrender their violence at the door. Agree to act in a way that is not seriously threatening (how often do we here unions say they do not seek to seriously harm the company, or its profit margins?). The extent of this ‘Paper Tiger’ effect stretches to politics also. Think of the recent ‘take back parliament’ movement seeking electoral reform. It explicitly states its intention to not be ‘non violent’. This means that the moment it entered into violence, by some excess or anarchic action, it would lose its efficacy. This is in part, due to the lack of the possibility for genuine revolutionary violence to emerge, because movements are always already ‘quantified’ and castrated, they seek resolution within the order, not complete rupture from it. Too often, violence is seen solely as Id evil. When this emerges, it serves to undermine the whole movement, and its reinforces its castration, by ‘forcing’ an acknowledgement that things have gone too far and need to stop. Think of the recent violence in Greece, where, the tragic death of ordinary bank workers, forced the violence to subside, ending the surge of the protesters, showing how far they were willing to go, and no further. This pathetic violence against the bank workers, showed the very lack of revolutionary violence the protestors needed to bring about what they wanted, but never really had it seems. In the end, they were just another Paper Tiger..
13/5/10 ‘ConDem Pact: Liberalism as a vanishing Mediator?’
The term ‘Vanishing Mediator’ applies to a concept/idea/political discourse that serves to mediate two opposing elements. At the point of transition from one element to the other, the mediator, well, vanishes. Could the ConDem pact act as such a mediator from the pre-existing ‘progressive’ majority, towards a full blown new Conservatism? What reason would we have to assume this? Firstly, we can characterise that, if the Conservative share of the vote was about 37% and putting aside the BNP, and nationalist parties of Northern Ireland (that operate in an almost independent political world) then we can say that the majority of the electorate is ‘progressive’ or ‘left of centre’. The right has struggled since Thatcher, and even now, it tends to portray itself as a different kind of ‘progressive right of centre’ Cameron is often characterised as a ‘social conservative’ after all. But are we now, through this new ConDem government on the road away from the left of centre for good? A journey that the Liberal Democrats are facilitating, destined to eventually disappear?
The situation has an eerie feel to it for many on the left and the right. What are we witnessing? The Liberal Democrats are a small element in a coalition government, the party of the ‘unsullied left’ that in its current incarnation has never known power. Its influence, its discourse, has been informed by this ‘staying out of it’ giving them a unique position between the old let/right divide. They offered a different kind of Leftist politics. Now they are in serious danger of losing their political substance, offering it up (if the coalition is successful) to a new Conservatism that has a social democratic conscience, that accepts the need for superficial liberalism (equality transparency) but still maintains a right of centre sting, of Euro scepticism, elitism, and a suspicion of the welfare state. On these areas, with the exception of Europe, many of the Liberal Democrats (the orange book Liberals) seem to actively support the Conservatives on an ideological level. The conservative party will learn the lesson of maintaining a social face, a lesson Cameron was already pushing (the bog society ring fencing the NHS budget).
The Liberal Democrats may then, be surplus to requirements, on the road to a new Conservatism that maintains its roots, but hides them behind the veneer of an imported Liberalism. Is it not the case that we have the perfect a perfect partnership in the ‘obscene roughness’ of conservatism and the ‘hysterical’ idealism of the Liberal Democrats? It reminds me of the South Park episode, ‘I’m a Little Bit Country’ where the town was split between the right wing nuts who were pro war, and the Left wing ‘pussies’ who were against it at all costs. The ‘synthesis’ is achieved at the end, when Cartman tells the town about what the founding father’s intended for the emerging American nation, was that it be both pro war, and against, that the right wing needed the left to take the coarseness off of it, and to seem as though the country had some sanity in it, and did not appear too aggressive. Likewise, the left wing pussies needed the right wing to defend them, the harsh reality of war was dealt with, by them, because without them, they ‘would be taken down in a second’. On realisation, the once great opponents enter into a sing off involving a medley of Rock and roll and country music…
Previous Articles
29/6/10 War Machines and States: Why Can't We Win in Afghanistan?
Recently, there has been an increase in unease over the War in Afghanistan. We do not know what to do. This article is a look at the Deluezian concept of a 'War Machine' in an effort to understand the difficulty of achieving vicotory in Afghanistan.
Recently, there has been an increase in unease over the War in Afghanistan. We do not know what to do. This article is a look at the Deluezian concept of a 'War Machine' in an effort to understand the difficulty of achieving vicotory in Afghanistan.
20/6/10 The Myth Communitarianism and the ‘Big Society’
David Cameron's efforts to engender the 'Big Society' during the general election, may have fallen on deaf ears, but Cameron is still determined to punch it through, along with a program of savage cuts to public spending.
David Cameron's efforts to engender the 'Big Society' during the general election, may have fallen on deaf ears, but Cameron is still determined to punch it through, along with a program of savage cuts to public spending.
14/6/10 '‘Tokenism and Political Correctness, Why can’t South Africa be Like Us?’'
With South Africa hosting the World cup, the perhaps inevitable patronising has gone into overdrive. But How exactly is South Africa 'allocated' its space in the global system, and why? are we still being Imperialist, in imposing our fantasies of Africa on the country?
With South Africa hosting the World cup, the perhaps inevitable patronising has gone into overdrive. But How exactly is South Africa 'allocated' its space in the global system, and why? are we still being Imperialist, in imposing our fantasies of Africa on the country?
Links
(scroll here)
Latest Article
22/7/10 'THOUGHTS ON POETRY AND PHILOSOPHY'
A philosophical look at poetry, its relation to language, its relation to reality and the world, its differences from philosophy and its similarities..
A philosophical look at poetry, its relation to language, its relation to reality and the world, its differences from philosophy and its similarities..
Comments/Thoughts
Comments
-
(Posted on 2010-07-10 14:08:00 by )
-
I think I get what you mean. Dig deep!
(Posted on 2010-01-19 13:21:00 by ) -
It worries me you may be right.
(Posted on 2009-12-16 09:57:00 by ) -
I so agree with you!
(Posted on 2009-08-05 20:18:00 by )
If you want to request a link, send an email, I can have a gander at the blog, and if its any good, I will give a link and description here, or elsewhere on the page. Get in touch. menshallknownothingofthis@live.co.uk
That Zizek is a nutter, should have played the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland instead of Johnny Depp!