Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:23:47 +0100 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: Endless War This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Paul/all It is interesting that you raise the Baudriallard piece as the exemplary piece of post-modernism on the first Gulf war, in response I would suggest that the work of de Landa (based on Deleuze&Guattari) or Paul Virillo is more appropriate in that they address the actuality of the changes in the nature of post-modern warfare. Whereas for all it's interest Baudrillard's piece is really about the 'spectacle' rather than the technologies of death and control. I am not attempting here to argue for or against postmodernism as such - if pushed I would repeat Lyotards inconclusive argument that post-modernism marks the period when the grand-narratives no longer function. (Given that I do not agree with this position it is obvious that I do not consider post-modernism to be unquestionable). [From Lyotard's Postmodern Condition] But note that within a post-modernism derived from Lyotard then both Le Monde and Zmag can be considered to be perfectly and indeed exemplary postmodern organs of the spectacle. (The theory of the spectacle is not however a postmodern theory). For myself it seems clear that Chomsky is mistakern in his central thesis "that is well understood about human affairs is pretty simple..." precisely the opposite seems true. It is this question of the ease of interpretation and consequent misunderstanding that makes one suspicious of the demand for ease of understandability and use. Which is to suggest that complexity cannot be avoided in the discussion of human and inhuman affairs. (It is true that Chomsky is very far removed from Baudriallard, however the scale of Baudriallrd's errors have always been smaller than Chomsky's - consider the difference in scale of error between Baudrillard's Gulf war piece and Chomsky's writing in the 1970's in defense of Pol Pot's regime....) The relevance of postmodernism is related both towards the end of the earlier forms of colonialism, the slow decline in the central importance of the nation state and the emergence of the new forms of colonialism that are inflicting such havoc on the world in which we live. I acknowledge that there are many variations on of postmodernist and postcolonial theories that have appeared since the late 1970s but the limitations are only now becoming obvious. The prefix states that postmodern and postcolonial theories never cease critiquing past forms and the results in the present. For a postmodernist for example will always return to the enlightenment as the source of all domination whilst postcolonialism returns to the impacts of colonialism in such notions as 'subultan' thought. However as far as I can see the primary issue here is that neither line of thought appears capable of addressing, of creating a critique that adequately addresses todays situation or even which is more serious recognise who the opposition is. This is not to say that those aspects of the postmodern which have become everyday aspects of our existences have not become part of the "toolbox of struggle" (legrande) for they have however it seems clear that 21st C radicals are disinterested in the anti-universalism of the postmodern. It is clear that the postmodern theories around concepts of difference, fluidity and hybridity raised initially to attack the universalisms of the enlightenment have already been outmanoevered by the tactics and strategies of capitalism. It's clear for example that capital long ago left the universalisms behind and went around and joined them in their attack. Not that this is to be unexpected any reader of Adorno and debord could have predicted this result. My renewed interest in Lyotard's anti-colonial writings does not raise itself because in some sense I am accusing Lyotard's later self of being a "running-dog of capital" rather the opposite - I was interested in the thought of when and why a theory is useful. I am interested in precisely what a post-modern understanding/variant of the current G8 neo-colonial adventures might be, especially given that post-colonial writings plainly don't work when the bombs fall, the information systems track and record and the cruise missiles fly, shortly before the occupying troops arrive. Nearly all the post-modern theories emerge from Lyotard's partial critique of moden meta-narratives, Baudrillard's work on cultural simulacra or Derrida's critique of western metaphysics - this is usually taken as emerging from a general critique of the western enlightenment. But here lies the problem is it accurate to assume that the current colonial adventures, globalisation, rank imperialism in fact are really derived from the enlightenment or simply that as the world is now post-modern the return of the universalist critiques (aka Badiou etc) is inevitable. I think I am assuming like both Fanon and Lyotard that the wars in the world generally require some involvement of the G20 countries to take place... enough... reagrds steve
HTML VERSION: