Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:15:04 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Counter Reformation...




Glen

Your understanding is clearer could you clarify a bit further in what 
you mean by 'sloganism'  and 'avataristic' - as it is not clear what 
this might mean. Esepcially given that it suggests that elsewhere the 
politics might be different than this - perhaps you could clarify 
exactly would this be ?

The argument between 'organisation' and Negri's 'networks' has been 
interestingly discussed in the discussions around Porto Alegre and the 
world social forum meetings. Hardt's argument with Tom Mertes is 
essentially around  "...either one can work to reinforce the sovereignty 
of nation-states as a defensive abarrier against the control of foriegn 
and global capital, or one can strive towards a non-national alternative 
to the present form of globalisation that is equally global..."  The 
formaer position is broadly Negri and Hardt's position  - but Hardt 
suggests that the national soveriegnty defence against the forces of 
international capital presents an obstacle to global democracy. In 
response Mertes makes a strong case for understanding the nation-state 
as more differentiated and  because it is an "essential instrument  for 
global capital" argues that it is a site for struggle and argument. 
 There has been no adequate response to Mertes from the networks side of 
the argument. It is worth remembering that for an event such as the WSF 
or the European social forum the human numbers involved tend to be so 
large that a great deal of planning, organisation and consequently 
internal politics are required -  in Brazil at the last WSF "Brazil, 
Argentina and Uruguay fielded 7000 delegates" between them at that point 
the numbers probably require some form of representational democracy.


regards
steve


Glen Fuller wrote:

>>Glen what is you reading of the text you sent?
>>    
>>
>
>Steve,
>I think he is analysing the moral panic around violence that some other 
>conventional (read: conservative) journalists/analysists want to 
>construct and then analyse the violence, but Bourdieu is doing it 
>without ever realising (at least in the interview) that it is a moral 
>panic. He seems to be saying who cares if the violence is real or not, 
>that is the best bit!
>The 'sloganism' of left politics of Europe seems a bit avataristic. 
>
>I think his best point, that is kind of obvious, and something that he 
>returns to in his Acts of Resistance book is that the conditions that 
>are precipitated by neo-liberalist governments and policies make it 
>appear as if a neo-liberalist future is 'an inevitable one' for 'it 
>proclaims an economic fatalism, against which any resistance appears to 
>be futile' (I am sure Bourdieu must have been a trekkie! Or there is a 
>trekkie-marxism, hehe). 
>
>One major fault I have with his analysis is the requirement that 
>protest be 'organised'. Why they can not remain like Negri's 'circuits 
>of resistance'?
>
>I understand it as a post-marxist marxist secretly suggesting that we 
>need an organised resistance (which is possible but only appears as if 
>it isn't), an alternate system which is _believable_ for what ever 
>reason and the believability of the system is important in the face of 
>neo-liberalism's inevitability. 
>
>Ciao,
>Glen.
>
>  
>

HTML VERSION:

Glen what is you reading of the text you sent?
    

Steve,
I think he is analysing the moral panic around violence that some other 
conventional (read: conservative) journalists/analysists want to 
construct and then analyse the violence, but Bourdieu is doing it 
without ever realising (at least in the interview) that it is a moral 
panic. He seems to be saying who cares if the violence is real or not, 
that is the best bit!
The 'sloganism' of left politics of Europe seems a bit avataristic. 

I think his best point, that is kind of obvious, and something that he 
returns to in his Acts of Resistance book is that the conditions that 
are precipitated by neo-liberalist governments and policies make it 
appear as if a neo-liberalist future is 'an inevitable one' for 'it 
proclaims an economic fatalism, against which any resistance appears to 
be futile' (I am sure Bourdieu must have been a trekkie! Or there is a 
trekkie-marxism, hehe). 

One major fault I have with his analysis is the requirement that 
protest be 'organised'. Why they can not remain like Negri's 'circuits 
of resistance'?

I understand it as a post-marxist marxist secretly suggesting that we 
need an organised resistance (which is possible but only appears as if 
it isn't), an alternate system which is _believable_ for what ever 
reason and the believability of the system is important in the face of 
neo-liberalism's inevitability. 

Ciao,
Glen.