That is an excellent distinction, which my Clauswitzian cluelessness precludes me from pursuing.
Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine
- Thread starter baboon2004
- Start date
That is an excellent distinction, which my Clauswitzian cluelessness precludes me from pursuing.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
but: perhaps Clausewitz's way of fighting wars is not a good one for the societies fighting those wars.
"but: perhaps Clausewitz's way of fighting wars is not a good one for the societies fighting those wars."
or groups fighting those wars. which are, in some ways, psychological groups. the war is also a war between psychological groups. but not in as simple a way as the war of the normal against the pathological.
"Perhaps. But what are the alternatives? Consider a war with no political resolution, for instance, the Gaza War. It has not finished, it has merely paused."
EDIT: the idea of war is peace...? the idea for anyone fighting a war has to be peace...? like the pearl in an oyster. or the stone in your shoe.
EDIT2: or the MGMT tune which is stuck in my head.
or groups fighting those wars. which are, in some ways, psychological groups. the war is also a war between psychological groups. but not in as simple a way as the war of the normal against the pathological.
"Perhaps. But what are the alternatives? Consider a war with no political resolution, for instance, the Gaza War. It has not finished, it has merely paused."
EDIT: the idea of war is peace...? the idea for anyone fighting a war has to be peace...? like the pearl in an oyster. or the stone in your shoe.
EDIT2: or the MGMT tune which is stuck in my head.
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
-purses lips-
you've got me mate. tho, alright - prehistorical wars tended to be much more ritualistic & less lethal - I'm no anthropologist but I believe there's some evidence of this with existing Stone Age peoples (probably evidence against it too), not cause people then were less violent but cos war served different purposes for them. isn't Clausewitz very much for "total war" & the decisive battle? which leads to stuff like million man armies of WWI & giant nuclear arsenals pointed at each other. again I'm no military theorist - as well that bit about prehistorical war isn't really an "alternative" cos it's not something that it's possible to go back too, I dunno there's some vague idea here maybe about finding other outlets for violence & the rituals that war serves.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
ok. but it always has a goal, or many goals, doesn't it? often working at cross-purposes to each other.
Different groups have different goals... do all groups have goals?
what is a group, what is a goal?
EDIT: Or what is a political goal? Power!
EDIT 1: But power can't be itself a goal...
EDIT2: Or can it?
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
surely it can? tho what power is perhaps means different things to different people. or groups.
also this what is a group, what is a goal, I mean at some point you have to have definitions of some manner right?
vimothy
yurp
"He who uses force unsparingly, without reference to the bloodshed involved, must obtain a superiority if his adversary uses less vigour in its application... From the social condition both of States in themselves and in their relations to each other... War arises, and by it War is... controlled and modified. But these things do not belong to War itself, they are only given conditions; and to introduce into the philosophy of War itself a principle of moderation would be an absurdity."
groups need to maintain themselves - otherwise they wouldn't be groups.
but the objects (Latour's actants) in the network composing the group will have different intentionalities, and be pulling in different directions. these different directions will constitute the shape of the group. leaders emerge. they have to actively shape the group - otherwise they would cease being leaders. but they will not all try to shape the group in quite the same way. there are religious leaders, moral leaders, political leaders, military leaders. gang bosses, celebrities, drug dealers.
EDIT - "also this what is a group, what is a goal, I mean at some point you have to have definitions of some manner right?" sorry, i was just thinking out loud. but maybe the first thing the group needs is some manner. of speaking, of meeting, of being-with. and this different manner will determine the different ways it will operate.
EDIT - I remember this quote, apparently from one of FDR's daughters: "If you have nothing nice to say, come sit next to me."
EDIT - I am listening on the BBC to people in Parliament reading out funeral orations for David Cameron's son.
but the objects (Latour's actants) in the network composing the group will have different intentionalities, and be pulling in different directions. these different directions will constitute the shape of the group. leaders emerge. they have to actively shape the group - otherwise they would cease being leaders. but they will not all try to shape the group in quite the same way. there are religious leaders, moral leaders, political leaders, military leaders. gang bosses, celebrities, drug dealers.
EDIT - "also this what is a group, what is a goal, I mean at some point you have to have definitions of some manner right?" sorry, i was just thinking out loud. but maybe the first thing the group needs is some manner. of speaking, of meeting, of being-with. and this different manner will determine the different ways it will operate.
EDIT - I remember this quote, apparently from one of FDR's daughters: "If you have nothing nice to say, come sit next to me."
EDIT - I am listening on the BBC to people in Parliament reading out funeral orations for David Cameron's son.
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I'm not saying that this is wrong, just that it's not the only possible line of thought. I mean surely this is exactly what lead to the massive buildup of armies in the decades leading up to WWI? & so on?
I guess the real problem is that once the cat's out of the bag & someone somewhere is committed to war without "a principle of moderation" everyone has to be. which imo, frankly, just sucks. so perhaps Clausewitz was a self-fulfilling prophecy. though I guess there are numerous examples of total war before him - again the Mongols.
actually one could argue that the post-WWII objections to "total war", both moral & self-serving (to sons serving etc.), are the reason states have such trouble winning irregular wars against non-state actors. think about what state has been most successful winning a war of this nature recently - Russia in Chechnya Pt II by sheer brutality & killing like a 1/5th of the population. let me be clear that I'm not in any way advocating this kind of horror, just saying that traditionally through history that's how conquerors won guerrilla wars or ended them before they started.
Putin's power is that of a tyrant, no? Whereas Bush's was that of a puppet - of history, of weird Oedipal complexes, of a mad man like Cheney. The madman the and the idiot successfully seized the United States, by counseling the pursuit of a man, stupid direction. Putin bases his own appeal on strength, discipline, almost monastic. He does not appear personally malevolent or self-interested. Quite the opposite. A cool character. Thin-lipped. Capable of applying extreme force to the degree that he sees it is in Russia's best interests. Which so far he has apparently shepherded to general approval.
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Godard references and everything! Wow are we on today.
Why would it have to be one or the other? I would say it's neither misogynistic nor feminist.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
no actually I never did. I've been thinking about it tho. gotta sort out the $ & that.
Don't do it! You're doing fine without it. Unless it sounds like a whole lot of fun to you.
Yes, I think that's what's happening.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Exactly.
Signifiers are just floating around until you situate them somewhere.
You can't talk about everything all at once--that's where people get into trouble, thinking they can do that.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
the bottom line - Putin made Russia strong again, or at least appear strong, he put a lid on the Wild West Yankee capitalism. either way my point was more that, for a host of reasons, not all of which I comprehend, Russia/ans are willing to do what is "necessary" to win such a war. this is not, I think, a "good" kind of will, though perhaps it's one that Clausewitz would, if not admire, then perhaps nod his head at?