Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:25:26 +0000 From: "steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: modes of production and procedures of truth Glen I was not arguing that the 'tool' should be abandoned - rather that to place it in a linguistic turn, so that 'discourse' has the central importance in the position you are constructing is what causes the problem because you appear to have removed the materialist and universal themes from D&G's work, which is central to their work. (You arer being rather gentle on Zizek's book which was dreadful. Though Zizek is not the high priest of obscurity - i think we can leave that claim to others...) Notwithstanding this you are right in identifying the differences between us where you state that the way to combat the 'universalism' of the neo-cons, is to continue discarding intellectual and political territory to the reactionary discourses of the right. To combat it by avoiding the discusive arms-race and in the process having to discard the only arguments that are attempting to retake the high ground... In some sense the critique of Marxism that you mention in AO and Lyotard's interpretation of the text are precisely part of the retreat from the militancy of 68, whilst AO noticably misses the Stalinist target, Lyotard hits the target as he retreats to effectively support liberal-democracy. It took 20 years for a directly political usage of capitalism and schzophrenia to emerge, Guattari and Deleuze failing to construct a leftist political line - which is seemingly impossible without establishing a reasonable relationship with Marx. It is no coincidence that in both the most challenging uses of the capitalism&schzophrenia project Negri&Hardt and MacKenzie are in their different ways working to establish a post perspective (MarX on one side of the and and kant on the other rather than Deleuze being incapable of writing the book on Marx, obviously, obviously as was pointed out to me recently '..he could never write it he was so unsound on Hegel...'). So the difference here then is that I refuse to leave the universal to the right, nor for that matter should we allow the local to disintergrate into being a discursive representation... Yes I understood where you are getting that version of 'infinite' Badiou from, I'm drawing it from a different range of texts . The monotheistic (Christian) dialectic is precisely to be both particularist in it's investment in the local community and excluding and also universalistic in it's indo-european godliness. In this case we are not dealing with an assemblage of fragments - as D&G would have to agree given the use they make of Dumezil and Simondan but rather something that requires 'history' and the trinary ideology of the indo-european as described in the ATP. Have to go ---- I'm allergic to the word democracy as it's analytically clear that we will never get beyond 'actually existing democracy' whilst we continue to use it - I rather like Negri's post-marxist use of the word 'communism' but in truth I am using the phrases out of the more traditional Marxist lines of Badiou and Debord, simply because I distrust the prefix 'post' one always have to ask what is being left behind ? and I don't quite understand what Negri and Hardt are leaving behind in their post-modernism. But it is of course the case that this line is connected and so 'democracy and the common' can be used in these terms. late again... best steve >Hmmm, some very brief questions as I need to get back to work (fuck, >always when it gets exciting!!). Your 'radical equality' does that mean >N&H's 'democracy'? And is the 'constitution of the proletariat' the >realisation of N&H's 'commoness'? Or a cross connection? I think you >are talking about what N&H call democracy and commoness in Multitude >but I am not sure??? > >Ciao, >Glen. > > > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005