File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0310, message 59


Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:16:11 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Endless War


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Paul

Responding to the issues briefly in order:  The use of numbers of 
citations to authors  in Zmag, Le Monde Diplomatique is not relevant,  
because in both cases it is matter of statements being used to maintain 
existing ideological positions. In scientific and academic journals for 
example there is a rather bizarre tendency to justify importance by the 
number of citations. It's bizarre because it attempts to maintain the 
fiction that we must accept the norm as related to number of citations 
as a representation of 'truth'. The reality is rather that for a media 
Chomsky is an easy representation whereas a cultural critic is difficult .

If there is an appropriate criticism of Baudrillard's work on the first 
gulf war it is not that he was wrong to regard it as a 'simulation of a 
war' for as we should all know it simply never belonged within the 
neo-Clauswitczian notion of a war, that at it's simplest states that 
wars take place between two sides with an uncertainty over who will be 
the victor. Now unlike the mass-media during the time (who imagined that 
Saddam might be victorious) we knew that the struggle was completely 
unequal and that the war that was important to the USA+Allies was the 
media representation. Baudrillard's work in reterospect appears better 
than it did at the time for we have seen the technology of the G8 war 
machines move on from the classical Air and Land war of the gulf war 
(with the addition of real-time) through the cyberwar's of the balkans 
onto the most recent Iraq adventure, in relation to these latter events 
Baudrillard's work appears to be a better attempt at understanding the 
representations than most. This is not to say that we do not need the 
classical war reporting of a 'Robert Fisk' because of course we do, but 
the latter does not have the means to differentiate clearly between a 
war and the simulation of a war. (He would object I'm sure with the 
sentence "but people don't die in a simulation..." but of course they 
do...). It may be then that we should accept that Baudrillard's Gulf war 
work needs reading in combination with his friend Paul Virillo... on 
it's own it is simply to painful. Need I add that at no time does 
Baudriallard suggest that people didn't die - rather that the war was 
over in advance, over before it really took place...

With regard to Chomsky and Cambodia - the case can't be proved in 
Chomsky's favour he was wrong in the 1970's which is when it counted, 
and no reterospective justification seems possible given that the 
evidence for the actuality of the event was known at the time. I vaguely 
remember his critique of John Pilger who was writing on Cambodia at the 
time... (I'm aware of Chomsky's work on East Timor and it was reported 
on the BBC and World Service). However this may be irrelevant and I 
don't want to get weighed down by these events after all these years.

It is interesting that you refer to the 'mirror of production' a text 
which is can be read as a critique of the productivism of  Deleuze and 
Guattari's Anti-Oedipus and Lyotard's Libidinal Economy, interesting 
because with the emphasis placed on consumption you can see the 
beginnings of the attempts to break with production and produce a 
radical politics of consumption. (A move which has haunted us for the 
past 30 years...) This is not something that Baudrillard has ever argued 
is a good or necessary idea, that was never the intention of the old 
nihalist, but if it had been he would have argued for the importance of 
the sign, representation and the symbolic. If you are dealing with large 
claims - a critique of some of the dominant themes of the enlightenment 
  is a  large claim then you had better not be caught out on a 
relatively simple issue. As such within their respective areas of work 
Cambodia and the claim that the Gulf War did not take place are 
remarkably similar. Both deeply flawed ...

regards
steve


>
>"The evacuation of Phnom Penh undoubtedly saved the lives of many
>thousands of Cambodians... what was portrayed as a destructive,
>backward-looking policy motivated by doctrinaire hatred was actually a
>rationally conceived strategy for dealing with the urgent problems
>that faced postwar Cambodia." (P.56.)
>
>  
>

HTML VERSION:

Paul

Responding to the issues briefly in order:  The use of numbers of citations to authors  in Zmag, Le Monde Diplomatique is not relevant,  because in both cases it is matter of statements being used to maintain existing ideological positions. In scientific and academic journals for example there is a rather bizarre tendency to justify importance by the number of citations. It's bizarre because it attempts to maintain the fiction that we must accept the norm as related to number of citations as a representation of 'truth'. The reality is rather that for a media Chomsky is an easy representation whereas a cultural critic is difficult .

If there is an appropriate criticism of Baudrillard's work on the first gulf war it is not that he was wrong to regard it as a 'simulation of a war' for as we should all know it simply never belonged within the neo-Clauswitczian notion of a war, that at it's simplest states that wars take place between two sides with an uncertainty over who will be the victor. Now unlike the mass-media during the time (who imagined that Saddam might be victorious) we knew that the struggle was completely unequal and that the war that was important to the USA+Allies was the media representation. Baudrillard's work in reterospect appears better than it did at the time for we have seen the technology of the G8 war machines move on from the classical Air and Land war of the gulf war (with the addition of real-time) through the cyberwar's of the balkans onto the most recent Iraq adventure, in relation to these latter events Baudrillard's work appears to be a better attempt at understanding the representations than most. This is not to say that we do not need the classical war reporting of a 'Robert Fisk' because of course we do, but the latter does not have the means to differentiate clearly between a war and the simulation of a war. (He would object I'm sure with the sentence "but people don't die in a simulation..." but of course they do...). It may be then that we should accept that Baudrillard's Gulf war work needs reading in combination with his friend Paul Virillo... on it's own it is simply to painful. Need I add that at no time does Baudriallard suggest that people didn't die - rather that the war was over in advance, over before it really took place...

With regard to Chomsky and Cambodia - the case can't be proved in Chomsky's favour he was wrong in the 1970's which is when it counted, and no reterospective justification seems possible given that the evidence for the actuality of the event was known at the time. I vaguely remember his critique of John Pilger who was writing on Cambodia at the time... (I'm aware of Chomsky's work on East Timor and it was reported on the BBC and World Service). However this may be irrelevant and I don't want to get weighed down by these events after all these years.

It is interesting that you refer to the 'mirror of production' a text which is can be read as a critique of the productivism of  Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus and Lyotard's Libidinal Economy, interesting because with the emphasis placed on consumption you can see the beginnings of the attempts to break with production and produce a radical politics of consumption. (A move which has haunted us for the past 30 years...) This is not something that Baudrillard has ever argued is a good or necessary idea, that was never the intention of the old nihalist, but if it had been he would have argued for the importance of the sign, representation and the symbolic. If you are dealing with large claims - a critique of some of the dominant themes of the enlightenment   is a  large claim then you had better not be caught out on a relatively simple issue. As such within their respective areas of work Cambodia and the claim that the Gulf War did not take place are remarkably similar. Both deeply flawed ...

regards
steve



"The evacuation of Phnom Penh undoubtedly saved the lives of many
thousands of Cambodians... what was portrayed as a destructive,
backward-looking policy motivated by doctrinaire hatred was actually a
rationally conceived strategy for dealing with the urgent problems
that faced postwar Cambodia." (P.56.)

  

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005