Subject: Re: AUT: More on Fascism
From: chris wright <cwright-AT-megapathdsl.net>
Date: 21 Apr 2004 18:21:30 -0400


Andrew,

I actually do not believe that the state exists prior to capital, at
least in a certain specific sense.  I disagree with the Engelsian
approach from Origin of the Family, Private Property and The State. 
There is something specific in the way in which the political and the
economic are separated under capital.

John Holloway's article (which I will link you to through a journal I
helped do, because it has my critique of Lenin's State and Revolution as
NOT libertarian in orientation) on this matter is clear and instructive,
as is Werner Bonefeld's article I will send the link to.

http://www.endpage.org/Archives/Subversive_Texts/Autonomy/Issue1.pdf

http://geocities.com/cordobakaf/bone.html

I also understood the sense in which law was being used, but I find it a
problem to use law in this way.  I do not think that Marx has the same
idea of law at all if one were to refer to commodity fetishism as a law,
as say Foucault does.

One problem I found with your texts is that they take little or no
account of Marx's negative dialectic, his use of negation as
determinate.  For example, the possibility of the proletariat as
revolutionary is not in some positive feature of the class, but in its
negative features (absolute alienation from property, for example,
leaving it a class with no stake in the existing society.)

Any number of articles are worth reviewing on this, but lately I am
promoting Theorie Communiste as particularly good.
http://www.theoriecommuniste.org/TC14English.html

Cheers,
Chris

ps - I will try and make specific comments for you on the papers on
Zizek I read.  Hopefully that grounds it a bit more.



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