Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:44:55 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Marx's critique




Lois/all

"Everywhere, the Critique of political economy (the subtitle of Marx's
Capital) and its correlate, the critique of alienated society, are used in
one way or another as aids in programming the system."  PMC, p.13

To answer the two questions, caused by my terrible lack of clarity - (an 
old problem caused by the slow uselessness of email ).

To return tothe beginning the rejection of 'critique' associated with 
Lyotard's review of AO was not something Deleuze agreed with, nor was he 
in agreement with the idea that Marx and the Critique were wrong. In the 
early 90s in a journalistic interview he said that he did not understand 
what it meant to claim that Marx was wrong, still less when they claimed 
that Marxism was dead for the urgent task of analysing the world market 
and it's transformations cannot be carried out without Marx. Only the 
high postmodernists and the high theorists of the neo-liberal 
counter-reformation really believed that the 'critique' was over rather 
than understanding that we were in a period of defeat and repression. I 
am interested not in an understanding of the PMC in 1979 - or even in 
1984 - but rather to read the statement in the light of the ending of 
the counter-reformation,  when history has returned with a vengence - 
Seattle, Genoa, Porto Alegre, Stop the War  and the WSF and ESF - so 
that Fukayama, Furet and indeed Lyotard can be seen to be either wrong 
or been superceded. The point of the critique for a materialist is not 
related to the question of communism or socialism but rather to the 
question posed by Deleuze related to capital and the question of surplus 
value. Capitalism does not work in the same way now as it did in the 
19th C or prior to the invention of the spectacle in response to the 
great crisis of the 1920s - and yet it does function. To understand what 
it does, to address the phantasmagorias of the spectacle and to respond 
to its contradictions - this is the business of the critique. Where 
early in his Career Lyotard argued that the notion of 'Critique' implied 
that the critic was unable to leave the ground established by the 
adversary's domain - what he discards is the means to understand and 
work against capital.

It is for these reasons that Lyotard's refusal of  the notion of 
'critique' has to be inverted and the refusal placed against his refusal 
of the critique. Now more than ever it is necessary to question 
precisely what the results of  arguing that the critique of political 
economy is simply another aid to the continuation of the system  means. 
(Lyotard's position is very different from arguing as Negri and Hardt do 
in Empire that capitalism changes in response to the struggles, 
resistences and demands of oppositional groups.)



regards
steve

Lois Shawver wrote:

> Steve, I found the remarks by Lyotard that you told us (the remarks 
> from the preface of D & G's Anti-Oedipus book) quite compelling. 
>  
> It also relates in an interesting way to a short paper by Freud, and 
> we know that Lyotard did read Freud.  Read Freud's paper, "Negative 
> Remarks."  (It is contained in his "Collected Papers" series of 5 
> volumes.)  There Freud says that if a patient in analysis free 
> associates so that she simply denies the truth of something that had 
> not been brought in any systematic way, say, perhaps, the patient that 
> a dream figure "was not my father," this indicates that the person is 
> struggling against the idea that the dream figure is, indeed, the 
> father.  I think Foucault has a similar remark somewhere, too, but for 
> the life of me I can't, at the moment, remember where.  Probably in 
> his book on Power.
>  
> And, I can see how this would be construed as a form of 
> false-consciousness, too.  However, Freud, at least, was not talking 
> of critique of others, but self-critique, that ostensibly made the 
> undenied truths "false" but left the whole logic and reasoning in 
> tact, although in a negative form.  It sounds like Lyotard is talking 
> about critique of others - but I think I see a connection, anyway.  
> Can you?
>  
> You said, Steve, Without going deeper into this, fundamentally 
> Hegelian and Marxist understanding of what 'critique' means,  it does 
> seem that given the current impossibility of constructing a radical 
> understanding of our societies without the use of some aspect of 
> critique then the question that Lyotard proposes needs to be 
> inverted.  "  I'm not sure I'm following you.  I am struck, 
> nevertheless, as I read your words by the thought that before Hegel 
> there was Kant talking about "critique".  What Kant was talking about 
> was the "critique of reason", or rather "pure reason". 
>  
> I hope you elaborate your understanding of the Hegel and Marx sense of 
> critique.
>
> ..Lois Shawver
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>     [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of
>     steve.devos
>     Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:15 PM
>     To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>     Subject: Re: Marx's critique
>
>     Lois
>
>     It depends  on whether you accept the proposal that 'critique'
>     does remain within the existing system. It is around the false
>     consciousness of cultural theorists and philosophers, the
>     incredible but nonetheless real mystification that translates
>     "social relations into the propositions of things themselves
>     (reification...) still more explicitly transforming the relations
>     of production itself into a thing" The notion of critique is
>     consequently then the incessent labor of consciousness against our
>     own neo-religious representations in what is after all a socially
>     and historically determined society.   Without going deeper into
>     this, fundamentally Hegalian and Marxist undeerstanding of what
>     'critique' means,  it does seem that given the current
>     impossibility of constructing a radical understanding of our
>     societies without the use of some aspect of critique then the
>     question that Lyotard proposes needs to be inverted.  
>
>     In 2003 the necessity for critique, the critique of political
>     economy (a wierd german science)and an understanding of Hegel's
>     logic seem more necessary than ever.  Can one say the same of the
>     strange positivism that occupied us (who are sadly old enough to
>     remember it) during the 70s and 80s - now that we are gradually
>     emerging from a dark and unpleasent tunnel ?  
>
>     regards
>     steve
>
>     Lois Shawver wrote:
>
>>      
>>     Here is the Lyotard sentence Steve and I were talking about:
>>      
>>     "Everywhere, the Critique of political economy (the subtitle of
>>     Marx's
>>     Capital) and its correlate, the critique of alienated society,
>>     are used in
>>     one way or another as aids in programming the system."  PMC, p.13
>>      
>>     I like your answer.  As you suggested, then, the critique remains
>>     within the language game of the original ideology.  It simply
>>     negates the key phrases, leaving all the linkages intact.  In
>>     other words, the critique has not yet invented a new language
>>     game in which can emerge a new form of life, a new way to live.
>>      
>>     So, is it in this way, in keeping us within the conceptual
>>     circles established by the language of the old ideology that the
>>     critiques aids the programming of the existing system?  I think
>>     it can also be read that the critique prepares the ground for the
>>     new system to emerge.  What does he mean by "the system"?  The
>>     old system or the new?
>>      
>>     ..Lois Shawver
>>      
>>     .
>>
>>         -----Original Message-----
>>         From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>>         [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of
>>         steve.devos
>>         Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:48 AM
>>         To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>>         Subject: Re: Marx's critiqu
>>
>>         Early in his Career Lyotard accepted and argued that the
>>         notion of 'Critique' implied that the critic was unable to
>>         leave the ground established by the adversary's domain. By
>>         implication, given that marxism is a critique of capitalism
>>         it follows that Lyotard would at some stage argue that
>>         marxism cannot leave the ground on  which capital stands. 
>>          The question is whether in 2003 the sentence means the same
>>         thing that it did in 1979 - plainly for the majority of
>>         postmodernists the sentence must be meaningless as the dream
>>         of socialism and communism is defined as over. 
>>
>>         In his review of Anti-Oedipus he states this very clearly:
>>         "In spite of its title, Anti-Oedipus is not a critical book.
>>         Rather, like the Anti-Christ, it is a positive, assertive
>>         book, an energetic position inscribed in discourse, the
>>         negation of the adversary happening not by Aufhebung, but by
>>         forgetting. Just as atheism is religion extended into its
>>         negative form--is even the modern form of religion, the only
>>         one in which modernity could continue to be religious--so
>>         does the critique make itself the object of its object and
>>         settle down into the field of the other, accepting the
>>         latter's dimensions, directions and space at the very moment
>>         that it contests them. In Deleuze and Guattari's book you
>>         will see everywhere their utter contempt for  the  category 
>>         of  transgression  (implicitly  then  for  the  whole  of
>>         Bataille): either you leave immediately  without wasting
>>         time  in critique, simply because you find yourself to be
>>         elsewhere than in the adversary's domain; or else you
>>         critique, keeping one foot in and one out, positivity of  the
>>         negative, but in fact nothingness of the positivity. And this
>>         is the critical  non-potence one finds in Feuerbach and
>>         Adorho. Marx said in l844 that  socialism doesn't need
>>         atheism because the question of atheism is positionally  that
>>         of religion; it remains a critique. What is important in the 
>>         question is not its negativity, but its position (the
>>         position of the problem)...."
>>
>>         regards
>>         steve
>>
>>         Lois Shawver wrote:
>>
>>>Anyone feel inspired to comment on this passage from Lyotard?
>>>
>>>"Everywhere, the Critique of political economy (the subtitle of Marx's
>>>Capital) and its correlate, the critique of alienated society, are used in
>>>one way or another as aids in programming the system."  PMC, p.13
>>>
>>>..Lois Shawver
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve, I found the remarks by Lyotard that you told us (the remarks from the preface of D & G's Anti-Oedipus book) quite compelling. 

 

It also relates in an interesting way to a short paper by Freud, and we know that Lyotard did read Freud.  Read Freud's paper, "Negative Remarks."  (It is contained in his "Collected Papers" series of 5 volumes.)  There Freud says that if a patient in analysis free associates so that she simply denies the truth of something that had not been brought in any systematic way, say, perhaps, the patient that a dream figure "was not my father," this indicates that the person is struggling against the idea that the dream figure is, indeed, the father.  I think Foucault has a similar remark somewhere, too, but for the life of me I can't, at the moment, remember where.  Probably in his book on Power.

 

And, I can see how this would be construed as a form of false-consciousness, too.  However, Freud, at least, was not talking of critique of others, but self-critique, that ostensibly made the undenied truths "false" but left the whole logic and reasoning in tact, although in a negative form.  It sounds like Lyotard is talking about critique of others - but I think I see a connection, anyway.  Can you?

 

You said, Steve, Without going deeper into this, fundamentally Hegelian and Marxist understanding of what 'critique' means,  it does seem that given the current impossibility of constructing a radical understanding of our societies without the use of some aspect of critique then the question that Lyotard proposes needs to be inverted.  "  I'm not sure I'm following you.  I am struck, nevertheless, as I read your words by the thought that before Hegel there was Kant talking about "critique".  What Kant was talking about was the "critique of reason", or rather "pure reason". 

 

I hope you elaborate your understanding of the Hegel and Marx sense of critique.

..Lois Shawver

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of steve.devos
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 2:15 PM
To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Marx's critique

Lois

It depends  on whether you accept the proposal that 'critique' does remain within the existing system. It is around the false consciousness of cultural theorists and philosophers, the incredible but nonetheless real mystification that translates "social relations into the propositions of things themselves (reification...) still more explicitly transforming the relations of production itself into a thing" The notion of critique is consequently then the incessent labor of consciousness against our own neo-religious representations in what is after all a socially and historically determined society.   Without going deeper into this, fundamentally Hegalian and Marxist undeerstanding of what 'critique' means,  it does seem that given the current impossibility of constructing a radical understanding of our societies without the use of some aspect of critique then the question that Lyotard proposes needs to be inverted.  

In 2003 the necessity for critique, the critique of political economy (a wierd german science)and an understanding of Hegel's logic seem more necessary than ever.  Can one say the same of the strange positivism that occupied us (who are sadly old enough to remember it) during the 70s and 80s - now that we are gradually emerging from a dark and unpleasent tunnel ?  

regards
steve

Lois Shawver wrote:

 

Here is the Lyotard sentence Steve and I were talking about:

 

"Everywhere, the Critique of political economy (the subtitle of Marx's
Capital) and its correlate, the critique of alienated society, are used in
one way or another as aids in programming the system."  PMC, p.13

 

I like your answer.  As you suggested, then, the critique remains within the language game of the original ideology.  It simply negates the key phrases, leaving all the linkages intact.  In other words, the critique has not yet invented a new language game in which can emerge a new form of life, a new way to live.

 

So, is it in this way, in keeping us within the conceptual circles established by the language of the old ideology that the critiques aids the programming of the existing system?  I think it can also be read that the critique prepares the ground for the new system to emerge.  What does he mean by "the system"?  The old system or the new?

 

..Lois Shawver

 

.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of steve.devos
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:48 AM
To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Marx's critiqu

Early in his Career Lyotard accepted and argued that the notion of 'Critique' implied that the critic was unable to leave the ground established by the adversary's domain. By implication, given that marxism is a critique of capitalism it follows that Lyotard would at some stage argue that marxism cannot leave the ground on  which capital stands.   The question is whether in 2003 the sentence means the same thing that it did in 1979 - plainly for the majority of postmodernists the sentence must be meaningless as the dream of socialism and communism is defined as over. 

In his review of Anti-Oedipus he states this very clearly: "In spite of its title, Anti-Oedipus is not a critical book. Rather, like the Anti-Christ, it is a positive, assertive book, an energetic position inscribed in discourse, the negation of the adversary happening not by Aufhebung, but by forgetting. Just as atheism is religion extended into its negative form—is even the modern form of religion, the only one in which modernity could continue to be religious—so does the critique make itself the object of its object and settle down into the field of the other, accepting the latter's dimensions, directions and space at the very moment that it contests them. In Deleuze and Guattari's book you will see everywhere their utter contempt for  the  category  of  transgression  (implicitly  then  for  the  whole  of Bataille): either you leave immediately  without wasting time  in critique, simply because you find yourself to be elsewhere than in the adversary's domain; or else you critique, keeping one foot in and one out, positivity of  the negative, but in fact nothingness of the positivity. And this is the critical  non-potence one finds in Feuerbach and Adorho. Marx said in l844 that  socialism doesn't need atheism because the question of atheism is positionally  that of religion; it remains a critique. What is important in the  question is not its negativity, but its position (the position of the problem)...."

regards
steve

Lois Shawver wrote:

Anyone feel inspired to comment on this passage from Lyotard?

"Everywhere, the Critique of political economy (the subtitle of Marx's
Capital) and its correlate, the critique of alienated society, are used in
one way or another as aids in programming the system."  PMC, p.13

..Lois Shawver