File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0106, message 47

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:08:27 +0100
Subject: Re: Weeping in my rolls royce because I can't afford the gas

The election marks the ongoing dominance of the European political scene by
'left of center' political parties and regimes. Whilst they are all engaging
in neo-liberal/globalising startegies, after all they all support the
post-modern economic climate, they are all engaged in maintaining some kind
of relationship with the socialist past they all emerge from. The reason for
the low turn out was effectivly two-fold 1) the labor part was going to win
and everyone knew it. 2) The general belief in the parties natural
constituancy (i.e people like me and the working classes etc) that they have
shifted too far to the right. In other words the vote was primarily against
the Tories gaining power rather than for something - in 97 it was a vote for
change - the left at that time (including myself of course) recognised that
they would continue with the thatcherist neo-liberal economcis but that it
was still a major victory.

The defeated tory party will now shift to the left, and rely on the
neo-socialist labor party to sort out its european problem for it.

The issue it seems to me is not related to the re-invention of some kind of
anarchism or council marxism, neither of which seem sustainable in an
industrial or post-industrial world, but how we can advance the
transformation of the state into something more dynamically socialist and

The limitations of democracy appeared last year in Austria - the local state
had elected a known neo-fascist and said person was to be brought into the
local cabinet. This was effectively prevented by the EC who threatened
economic and political sanctions if this had happened.

I do not think that the state will be dismantled - anything which has
existed for 10000 plus years, (see Mumford or Deleuze) will not easily be
dismantled. I suggest that the state, if understood as a form of
organisation to enable the existence of large populations in a small spatial
area will always be necessary. Increased socialist-democracy is a necessity
as should goes without saying... (I of course speak solely from a european


Yes i did love the religious statement and replied in kind... post-modernism


Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

> Steve,
> So what do you think about the elections?
> I heard it was the first time in 100 years the labor candidate was
> elected for two terms and that the turnover was extremely low(though you
> still have a long way to go to catch up with America - we're the leader
> of the free (sic) world.)
> Is it true that Tony Blair is Bill Clinton without the libido?
> Regarding the comments you made about taxes and the welfare state, I
> completely agree.  Noam Chomsky wrote an essay called "Visions and
> Goals" In it he pointed out, a vision is something like a classless
> paradise where we all dance naked.
> However, sometimes in order to stay on track with our vision, we
> sometimes need to accomplish short term goals that appear on the surface
> to move in the opposite direction.
> Thus, anarchists and autonomist/council Marxist may want to develop a
> society where the state becomes an anachronism.  To dismantle the
> welfare state today because of this vision, however, simply be
> counterproductive and stupid.
> I believe we first need to demand the state become more democratic
> before we proceed to dismantle it.  Otherwise, the result is fascism
> pure and simple. Thus, I say: tax the bastards. tax them til it hurts.
> PS - as promised, I sent out my attempt at postmodern religious
> evangelizing.  I hope you like it, whether or not you choose to accept
> Epicurus into your heart as your own personal savior.


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005