Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: andrew robinson <ldxar1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: More on Fascism


Foofighter_pilot,
 
If you're asking me, then I'd say they just pick up ideas which happen to be like what they already think.  Zizek doesn't seem to have learnt anything new since he read Lacan; he just reinterprets everyone else through the same lens.  And yes, it's probably possible to get something other than this from Schmitt, but we have to be careful when we know someone's got authoritarian politics.
 
I think you're perhaps understanding law too literally.  Usually the meaning I'd read into people like Agamben is that "law" means a positive set of ethical norms of a reactive type, the "law of the father" in Lacanian jargon.  In this sense, something like commodity fetishism, with the equivalence of objects before a single universal equivalent, is an instance of "law".  Also what Vaneigem calls "the cops in our heads".
 
Can you really say, though, that the state is simply one aspect of the capital/labour relation?  This fails to explain why states existed in pre- and non-capitalist societies, e.g. ancient Rome and feudal Europe.  The state has its own logic - irreducible to capitalism, though of course axiomatisable within it - which is itself oppressive.  Hence, the need to fight the state doesn't stop where capitalism ends.  See Deleuze and Guattari on the urstaat.
 
Andy


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---