Subject: RE: AUT:  More on Fascism
From: chris wright <cwright-AT-megapathdsl.net>
Date: 21 Apr 2004 18:09:50 -0400


Wow.

Ok, in terms of how you posed it, I agree.  I am not, btw, defending
humanism.  Other people might be more inclined to do so, such as the
News and Letters/Marxist-Humanist folks.  For my part, I keep wondering
why so few people attend to the fact that Marx ceases to use the term
humanism in relation to his own politics after 1845.

I am certain, however, that Althusser has some other idea in mind when
he opposes humanism.  For me, the critical issue is posed by the notion
of the subject-object relation and subjectivity.  All of this bantering
back and forth over transcendentalism and humanism to me revolves around
how this problem is resolved.  I see it as relating to how we conceive
of the proletariat and how we can posit the possibility of the abolition
of class society.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Chris

ps - yes, the article was a real hack job, btw.  After reading all of it
(and wondering why I bothered afterwards), I cannot but agree with you
on that point.
> 
> 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.
> 

> 
> Angela
> _______________
> 
> <end message>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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