Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 01:49:43 -0400 (EDT) From: glevy-AT-acnet.pratt.edu Subject: Re: state authoritarianism Bryan wrote the following very challenging post: > This discussion of the limits and evils of state power seems to lack a > crucial - and very modern - element: the promulgation of supporting > fictions. Premodern states might be limited by external forces (I won't > contest this now, accept as given) - but our states now generate "external > forces" to maintain and extend their power. "Policy" is always fictive. > That there are so manye xamples to choose from tells us something - but > think of the blatant invention of the menace of Islamic fundamentalism: a > force essentially external to the US, whose contours are shaped by foreign > policy think tanks, the State Department, and corporate-owned mass media. > Or: Yeltsin's unsuccessful attempt to narrate a story of Chechen > mafia-nesting. Or: Hitler's volk vs Jews. The pomo fixation on current > fictions and the fictive nature of most institutional products misses, as > has been said, the crucial function of state mythography. Orwell famously > writes of this - and we could call this phenomenon an iteration of > ideology. > Further, the contract idea has always struck me as potent, rather > than deeply right. I remember the first time I heard of the Rurik myth: > the Rus invited the Vikings to rule over them. Same reaction to social > contract theory - what a scam! The power of this idea to influence and > control - not so much in the hands of resistance movements, but in the > hands of the state - is clear and enormous, as well as fictive. > In other words, I argue that the state is a machine necessarily > addicted to its own power, its maintenance and extension (and, as Marx > tells us, this last is literally intensive and extensive - I'll get the > cite if someone asks). The state is based on INvoluntary power; myths of > voluntarism are just that, and are useful props. > My apologies for delurking into such a belated thread. > Jerry: Well, I'm certainly glad you delurked. If we accept the above, then one of three positions are possible. Position One: We agree not to take or hold state power (a respectable left anarchist position that shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand). Position Two: We agree that the working class in power should not develop "supporting fictions" (possibly a utopian position depending on your conception of the role of the state). Position Three: We agree that the workers' state should be allowed to develop self-serving "supporting fictions." I find Position Three to be unacceptable. Either the state should be honest with its citizens or there should be no state at all. > --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005