From: "Eric Blair" <eric-AT-thinkerforum.com>
Subject: Re: AUT:  More on Fascism
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:35:11 -0500


The Vaneigem book you're talking about is the declaration of the rights of
human beings or something along those lines.  His best stuff I think.

There are no such things as rights when they're conceived of as things being
granted to abstract human beings.  It isn't enough to say they're
meaningless.  This line of thinking has paved the way for man's complete
economization.

Instead there are only rights that are fought for every day, in the streets,
in the work place, at home, school, wherever.  They're materialized this
way.

exactly.  fresh too.  as if we have 'rights' because the state declares it
on paper on one hand.  but of course on the other hand we know that the fuzz
treat bruh's like their manhood never was.

especially if you're not good action. your rights don't matter if they
conflict with the commodification of everything.  they can be taken away.

that is unless, you've got the desert eagle point five oh tucked in your
belt.  stuff it in a bureaucrats mouth and then will you have total freedom
of expression.  you can talk about his mom, call him piggy, whatever. its
your right only because you're proving it to be then and there.

fierce machiavelli
politicalgraffiti.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: ".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s-AT-optusnet.com.au>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 1:54 AM
Subject: RE: AUT: More on Fascism


>
> Ok, various responses to various posts.
>
> David, I'm happy to grant that political humanism
> doesn't necessitate theoretical humanism, and
> Balibar makes a good arguement about this; but I'm
> not persuaded that the former is so easily
> immunised from passing over into the latter or
> validating its terms.
>
> But what's at stake here? I've a sense that the
> distinction works, for instance, in order to make
> a case for the strategic rather than philosophical
> use of rights claims; but I'm not sure how
> feasible (even strategically) this actually is
> anymore. At most, I'm prepared to talk about the
> promise contained in human rights discourses (with
> a nod to Derrida); but I do think that, especially
> but not exclusively because of the current
> historical conjuncture, a critique of rights
> doctrines is crucial.  I go on about this at
> length:
> http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol
> 2no1_2003/mitropoulos_barbed.html
>
> And yes, yes, a copy of the Montag piece would be
> much appreciated.
>
> Chris, I don't think humanism walks hand in hand
> with fascism in some abstract, timeless
> partnership. I would argue that humanism -- for
> some very particular reasons to do with the
> current period (like the emergence of a
> militaristic humanitarianism; a globalised
> nationalism and so forth) -- is no longer capable
> of being a rejoinder to fascism (or, to be more
> precise) the 'state of exception'.  In some
> instances, it's not only *not* a rejoinder but an
> affable partner, yes.  For some recently, and it's
> possible to cite numerous instances, it has formed
> the necessary transitional moment from, for
> instance, opposing the war to supporting it
> (Saddam was a dictator, hence it follows that
> ... ).
>
> Again here, the question for me is what's at
> stake.  I care little about the antipomoista
> brigade's attempts to pretend intellectual
> competence (though it makes me variously wince and
> annoyed); even less about defending the virtues of
> some disciplinary canon called 'poststmodernism'
> (because such a thing does not exist in the way
> it's often invoked except as a form of
> anglo-american academic niche anti/marketting, and
> the conflicts of the faculties doesn't interest me
> so much). But the slander contained in the article
> that began this thread does function as part of
> the War on Terror by other means.
>
> As for a critique of humanism, does this really
> begin with Heidegger?  I recall Marx saying
> something none too flattering about 'Man'. There
> are others.  And, while it's indisputable that
> Heidegger was Nazi scum (and I don't buy attempts
> to claim that his philosophy is separable from his
> politics), reading Heidegger is important I think
> because his work indicates *the limits* of his
> critique of humanism at precisely that point at
> which sovereignty makes itself felt.
>
> Thiago, I didn't mean that Hanson reads Herder
> (though I'm pretty sure that David (was it)
> Ettridge has; and I will wager that none of them
> like Levi-Strauss if they ever happened to venture
> across his work).
>
> I do, however, think that linguistic nationalism
> was pivotal to One Nation's attempt to appear as
> reasonable rather than racist, where
> 'reasonableness' is tautology passed off as logic.
> In its Mark II variant, after ON's first foray
> into federal elections, their principal insistence
> was that 'races' (or 'ethnic groups') should be
> separated by national borders because they are
> culturally and linguistically 'different'.  Grant
> the premise and the conclusions follow.
>
> Nate, do you recall the title of the Vaneigem
> book?
>
> PS. Yeah, the Saints were very cool; but the only
> time I saw them live was at their last gig at a
> crappy pub in Dee Why where I had to argue for an
> hour with the bouncer to let me through sans id.
>
> Angela
> _______________
>
> <end message>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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