Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:38:07 +0000
Subject: Re: the state and violence




Eric/Hugh/All

To support the refugees, nomads and the oppressed stateless figures 
synthesised into the anti-nation-state figure of universal citizenship 
(UC) and its associated 'abolition of  frontiers' is in itself a 
positive response. The assumption below seems to be that it is a 
defensive political move - this is not in my view the case - rather the 
opposite is true - if the notion of 'UC' was not a genuine longterm 
concern then the current attempts to close the borders to rfeugees, 
nomads and the effectivly stateless would not be occurring. We can 
propose rather that the 'attempts' are inevitably doomed to failure and 
that the propogation of social conflict between the differences is an 
attempt to maintain a splintered and splintering set of differences... 
What N&H propose  is the gradual demise of the nation state and the 
development of a new form of state power, as a response to the changes 
brought about due to struggle. The anti-global alliance which has 
fortunately (for it and us) dissapeared from the front pages of the 
media (thanks to 911) and as a consequence did not have to escalate the 
violence at the WTC, if they had not done so the spectacle would have 
stated that the anti-gtlobalisation movement was fading... The latter in 
a sense appear to confrim the theses of N&H  and support the theses 
around 'UC'. Perhaps in the end all that will be left is and will be 
difference.

The state or empire has to respond to the growing movement of 
populations which last year stood at >26Million migrants/refugees by 
closing borders and desperately trying to maintain control over its 
national populations - if it does not do so the ability of its subjects 
to identify themselves as 'Americans', by the name of local nation state 
is obviously, obviously in terminal decline... The very notion of being 
'british', 'french' or 'american' is ludicrous if stated unproblematically.

When I was in the USA a few weeks ago the very act of being a 
non-american citizen was sufficient to allow the local american 
bureacracy the 'right' to oppress the outsider - as a professional nomad 
the significance was not lost on me - that they are attempting to tell 
me that they can control 'Marie who is still going to Japan' along with 
businessmen and other tourists... but only for a couple of hours extra 
(For which we are all relieved given that they should always have been 
treating planes as endangered species...).

Perhaps it's odd that I don't feel that we are in a period of defensive 
politics but the beginnings of the opposite. If anything the state and 
the socio-economic system which should be all-triumphant but which 
(plainly) isn't, as it begins another decline into what we now call 
recession, but which is just another capitalist crisis. It is especially 
interesting that the left is  recovering its intellectual 
perspective/position at the moment of economic crisis. Most unusual.

The moral and political responses.... ah that's the easy bit...

I can feel Lyotard's ghostly smile and I am sorry that the 'deep dark 
depression' is still hanging around you...

regards

steve

Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

>steve.devos wrote:
>
>>All
>>
>>When I was very young we essentially believed that its was time for the state to be held accountable for the violence it committed and
>>contained. At some point we accepted that the issue was not simply the
>>state, but the socio-economic system as a whole, but not withstanding
>>this it was not possible or sensible to retreat from the former position.
>>
>
>Steve/Hugh/All:
>
>One of the points that N&H made in Empire concerned the the need to
>struggle for universal citizenship.  In his interview at the end of
>Ethics, Badiou also talks about his own political work regarding the
>"sans-papiers" and makes the following comment.
>
>"I would say of the abolition of frontiers what I said a moment ago
>about the withering away of the state.  I'm for it, I'm absolutely for
>it!  But to be for something yields no active political principle in the
>situation.  The question of knowing what happens to people who are in
>France is already a huge question. To refer this question back to a
>debate about the opening or the closing of borders, to the question of
>whether labour belongs to a global market or not, seems to forbid
>thinking about the situation itself and intervening in it so as to
>transform it."
>
>I disagree with much that Badiou says in his Ethics, but find what he
>says here about ethics seems true and right on target. I would also say,
>echoing Hugh's various points about the need to tranform the state for
>its current state that I am for them all, absolutely for them, but they
>also seem merely like distant possibilities today.
>
>In the wake of 911, one of the consequences was that the possibility of
>the closing of borders is even more remote than it was before. The short
>term result is that the powers of the state to intrude into the lives of
>individuals and minorities in the name of public protection has already
>become greatly intensified. The Patriot Act in America seems like an
>omnious strange first fruit of this new situation which will further
>strengthen the state's innate capacity for violence. That is the grim
>reality of the situation today.  
>
>The question becomes how to deal with all this. What are the moral and
>political responses that can be made when the withering of the state is
>a remote possibility that seems almost dreamlike?  
>
>In his essay on the Zone, Lyotard remarks that a defensive politics
>consumes less far energy that an offensive one.  Hia point was that 
>progressive politics in the early nineties appeared to be very much in
>the defensive mode. This seems even more true today.
>
>I feel that what was valuable for me in the Baudrillard essay was that
>he expressed perfectly this ambivalence I feel. The horror of the state
>in its mode of violent perfection, its arrogance of power juxtaposed
>against the weakness and impotence of all those human/inhuman forces who
>attempt in vain to resist it. 
>
>Then one fine morning out of the blue the perfection of this power is
>forever shattered. Even those of us who were Americans felt a deep dark
>feeling no flag waving patriotism could hope to hide. 
>
>It happened in a way that was like a horrible dream; and those who
>survived the event must continue to ask themselves - have I awakened or
>am I dreaming still? 
>
>looking for a light switch...
>
>eric
>
>

HTML VERSION:

steve.devos wrote:

All

When I was very young we essentially believed that its was time for the state to be held accountable for the violence it committed and
contained. At some point we accepted that the issue was not simply the
state, but the socio-economic system as a whole, but not withstanding
this it was not possible or sensible to retreat from the former position.

Steve/Hugh/All:

One of the points that N&H made in Empire concerned the the need to
struggle for universal citizenship.  In his interview at the end of
Ethics, Badiou also talks about his own political work regarding the
"sans-papiers" and makes the following comment.

"I would say of the abolition of frontiers what I said a moment ago
about the withering away of the state.  I'm for it, I'm absolutely for
it!  But to be for something yields no active political principle in the
situation.  The question of knowing what happens to people who are in
France is already a huge question. To refer this question back to a
debate about the opening or the closing of borders, to the question of
whether labour belongs to a global market or not, seems to forbid
thinking about the situation itself and intervening in it so as to
transform it."

I disagree with much that Badiou says in his Ethics, but find wha
t he
says here about ethics seems true and right on target. I would also say,
echoing Hugh's various points about the need to tranform the state for
its current state that I am for them all, absolutely for them, but they
also seem merely like distant possibilities today.

In the wake of 911, one of the consequences was that the possibility of
the closing of borders is even more remote than it was before. The short
term result is that the powers of the state to intrude into the lives of
individuals and minorities in the name of public protection has already
become greatly intensified. The Patriot Act in America seems like an
omnious strange first fruit of this new situation which will further
strengthen the state's innate capacity for violence. That is the grim
reality of the situation today.  

The question becomes how to deal with all this. What are the moral and
political responses that can be made when the withering of the st
ate is
a remote possibility that seems almost dreamlike?  

In his essay on the Zone, Lyotard remarks that a defensive politics
consumes less far energy that an offensive one.  Hia point was that 
progressive politics in the early nineties appeared to be very much in
the defensive mode. This seems even more true today.

I feel that what was valuable for me in the Baudrillard essay was that
he expressed perfectly this ambivalence I feel. The horror of the state
in its mode of violent perfection, its arrogance of power juxtaposed
against the weakness and impotence of all those human/inhuman forces who
attempt in vain to resist it. 

Then one fine morning out of the blue the perfection of this power is
forever shattered. Even those of us who were Americans felt a deep dark
feeling no flag waving patriotism could hope to hide. 

It happened in a way that was like a horrible dream; and those who
survived the event must conti
nue to ask themselves - have I awakened or
am I dreaming still? 

looking for a light switch...

eric