File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2004/postanarchism.0404, message 20


Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:11:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: villon sasha k <il_frenetico-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: [postanarchism] Kropotkin-Newman (Sasha's review)


The Individual:  Well, (and this is only a test) I
like this line from shawn, so I will begin there:
“saying "I" is for human beings a necessary
arrogation.”  I like it in part because I don’t know
what the word “arrogation” means (and I don’t have an
English language dictionary-though I suppose there is
one on the internet—better to not know for my use,
anyhow).  To me, it sounds like an “arrogant
assertion.”  And that is quite a good way to describe
the idea of the individual that informs much of the
writing on the KKA site.  The individual is an open
(not a human nature) and constructed site which we
arrogantly assert—both the site and the content.  In
doing so we don’t posit some sort of human nature, nor
do we imply that the site isn’t ideological, but we
attempt to arrogantly assert it as a creation that can
break out of the limits imposed upon it by capitalist
commodity and social relation reduction, domestication
under formal subsumption to capital.  Subjectivity may
be constructed and historical, but it is constructed
in a very contradictory way.  These contradictions
create the space in which we operate.  “I” is
contradictory and crossed with fractures—there is
always much that escapes systems of capture such as
capitalism and the state.  It is arrogant to assert it
in the same way that the French Revolution is an
assertion—there has been much written on the French
Revolution not really existing (the unsaid
“objectively” should be inserted here), and that is
true if we understand all Being as a multiplicity of
multiplicities.  It exists, however, as a subjective
assertion, and this existence is not necessarily any
weaker than any other—it has its effects, and thus it
is a method of intervention.  This is no less true of
the individual, I guess.  That is my wager.

Newman, Kropotkin and Philip:  I can’t tell if you
have read the Newman or not.  If you haven’t read the
Newman, you should check it out instead of taking my
word for it.  It seems to me that Newman likes the
idea of anarchism, but really wanted to discuss
post-structuralism—so after very briefly dealing with
anarchism, he moved on to his real subject.  (He could
jump in here on this, if he is still listening.)  As
to Kropotkin: I wouldn’t want to say he was a “stage”
in some development—sounds a bit too teleological to
me.  K’s relation to the present is less a stage in
the development than something that we can appropriate
for present usage.  This is one reason we shouldn’t
just write K. off, but mine him for present usage—and,
as I have more recently learned (I used to write him
off far too easily myself), there is a lot to mine
there.  Philip: “but we cannot react by a complete
dismissal of Newman's critique, because we need to
find a way to satisfy as many elements as possible”…. 
Sure, we don’t need to completely dismiss Newman, but
I think the basis for a post-anarchism is pretty weak
in his work; I am all for developing the practice of
theory and theory of practice in anarchism, and we
should use what ever is useful.   Philip: “he does not
develop K's thoughts on expropriation or, what I think
is at the heart of K's attempt, a desire for the
abolition of representative society.”  I like to hear
more on this.  Here are a couple of things I find
confusing in what you have written: “Thus, I don't see
how an argument against human nature as essentially
good (which K. does repeat time and again, "the good
sense and instinct for justice which animates the
masses", etc.) can properly dismiss K's theories.”  I
guess I just don’t understand this twisted sentence;
what are you saying?  AND:  “What is more important is
that we adress the un-reality of a simple
rich-middle-poor arrangement of society and to what
extent it is true and what extent it is an
exaggeration.”  Unreal in what way?  Are there not
rich and poor?  Do not the rich exploit the poor?  Or
am I missing something here?  We can certainly
complicate our (and Kropotkin’s) understanding of
capitalism.  But, in the end, how complicated an
understanding do we need?

Best,
   sasha 






-

====-------------

Anarchist Discussion Board -- Also for response to KKA, WD and Aporia: http://pub47.ezboard.com/banarchykka


The Killing King Abacus Page: http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005