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/
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005