Anti-Capitalist Fake-ism

massrock

Well-known member
I don't doubt that the personal plays a role in everything, how could it not? I don't care one way or the other about k-punk but it's unfair to suggest that he or anyone else is motivated simply by bitterness - you've no idea, nor do I - as well as a convenient way to sidestep whatever they have to say.
I hope he does have something to say.

I've read k-punk blog since the start, more or less, and often it's entertaining (yeah) and provocative and I have full respect for the chap. I also look forward to reading CR, but at present I would have to agree with zhao's assessment that ultimately there is nothing much there, and neither is there really meant to be because the discourse exists in a symbiotic relationship with it's supposed enemy. So the monologue runs on and on and it's sort of semi-compelling if you're not paying too close attention and want to be hypnotised, but really it's going nowhere and saying nothing. Maybe it's a zen thing...

He's not the only one, there's lots of voices out there like this, many of them apparently seduced by their own supposed cleverness or erudition or whatever.

It's not about 'personal problems', everyone has personal problems, that's not an accusation or grounds for dismissal. And it's not about anything like being 'motivated by bitterness'. It's the simple fact that a view of the world, or more importantly in what way you 'diagnose' it's condition and what you think should be done about it can very much be determined by personal states of being (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual), claims towards cold (!) rationality notwithstanding. This is true for all of us, obviously it does become more apparent with public projects where a person's focus, biases and preoccupations are writ large. If you are to presume to 'diagnose the state of the world' and offer your plans for it, I'd say it's important to at the very least acknowledge this. So when someone like Zizek rails rhetorically against such personal actions as taking responsibility for health where possible, or when the sorts of things zhao talks about as 'spiritual disciplines' are dismissed as unimportant or kooky, I think that's telling.
 

vimothy

yurp
I just think making exams easier was as much to do with reducing youth unemployment stats as convincing parents their kids had all excelled at school.

I agree with this. It's a complicated issue. I certainly don't think that it's only about getting reelected. Improving social welfare was a definite motive, certainly from thet academics, but also from the politicians and career civil servants. At least, that's the impression I got.

I don't think that it has been all bad, either.
 

Gavin

booty bass intellectual
Ha, I like this line. Rage Against The Machine CDs eBayed in favour of 'hauntological' dubstep...

Dubstep was never anti-capitalist in the U.S., it was(is?) a mixture of disaffected drum-and-bassers and IDM geeks, knit together with a love of weed.
 

vimothy

yurp
Not in actual words, no. Did you use some invisible font between the lines?

I didn't use the exact same words, no, but there's no way that you can detach the performance culture from its social welfare function. They are the same thing. "No--it was also..." The two are one.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
It's not about 'personal problems', everyone has personal problems, that's not an accusation or grounds for dismissal. And it's not about anything like being 'motivated by bitterness'. It's the simple fact that a view of the world, or more importantly in what way you 'diagnose' it's condition and what you think should be done about it can very much be determined by personal states of being

fair enough then. you see what I was getting at though.
 

massrock

Well-known member
padraig (u.s.) said:
fair enough then. you see what I was getting at though.
About what though?

I dispute that it's an ad hominem attack, it's a reaction (observation really, and presented as such) informed by and addressed to the content (or lack of), (mystifying) approach and antipathy towards certain available paths of action and resistance that I see evident in what are publicly displayed communications. It's not someone's secret diary.

And I would (do, I should hope) approach the views, motivations and conclusions of anyone who would propose to have a diagnosis of 'our predicament' in a similar way. Politicians, journalists, the catholic pope, bloke down the pub, you know, anyone. It's got nothing to do with the supposed 'radicalism' or 'marginality' of a particular position, far from it actually. But why would self-proclaimed 'radicals' be immune to the human issues that colour the thinking of just about everyone else? You know they're not.

Anyway, I do hope the book is good.
 

massrock

Well-known member
Kaczynski though. I'll admit I don't know all that much in depth about the case but is it relevant that some (which?) sections of the media romanticised him up to a point? Was this before he killed anyone? You don't think his actions had something to do with how he was subsequently treated and portrayed? I mean I sort of see what you're saying as regards ascribing motivations purely to psychological causes and negative perception of marginal lifestyles or whatever, that's a problem, but is there actually no truth in that (the roots of his views) and in any case can you really disentangle this from what he did and how most people would view that morally? Depending on what you believe he did do, I suppose, but killing people can tend to reflect badly on someone's credibility. From my point of view (and limited knowledge) this is someone who did come up with some rather skewed conclusions and who could have done with examining his own motivations a little more closely.

Not to imply this is really related to the discussion at hand, just it was mentioned.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
It's got nothing to do with the supposed 'radicalism' or 'marginality' of a particular position, far from it actually.

no, it has everything to do with that. with the context, as I said. it's the same tactic as claiming that feminists are just women who hate men b/c they can't get dates. anyway, you say that's what you meant - fine, leave it at that.

But why would self-proclaimed 'radicals' be immune to the human issues that colour the thinking of just about everyone else? You know they're not.

this isn't at all what I said or meant. which you know, of course. I do like the gratuitous "self-proclaimed". a classic underhanded dig.
 

poetix

we murder to dissect
Anyway, the crucible in which what will become a work of art and thought burns is brimful with nameless impurities; it comprises obsessions, beliefs, infantile puzzles, various perversions, undivulgeable memories, haphazard reading, and quite a few idiocies and chimeras. Analyzing this alchemy is of little use.

Alain Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I do like the gratuitous "self-proclaimed". a classic underhanded dig.

But exactly how radical is K-punk, for example? I mean, really? He's well known for singularly failing to advocate any kind of action against the kapitalist system he constantly excoriates in polemical blog posts (and now a book as well), in fact he goes as far as to airily dismiss the very idea altogether.

So suppose by some miracle he sold a few million copies. What would his new disciples accomplish by taking his words to heart - start their own theory-heavy politics blogs? Refuse en masse to pay their licence fees, if they live in the UK? Start buying the Times instead of the Guardian? I can't exactly see it bringing global Kapital to its knees, somehow - but others have intimated that this isn't really what he wants at all, as it would mean the evaporation of his raison d'etre.

What I'm saying is, how 'radical' are you really if all you do is think/read/write radical thoughts? Especially in a more-or-less liberal society where you're not risking your personal safety or liberty by doing so.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
the romanticization of of course his - anyone's - actions have something to with how they are subsequently treated. to be claim otherwise would be ridiculous, which is why I didn't. and everyone, or the great majority of us anyway, can do with more self-examination. but the conclusion was that he didn't kill people because of ideals (however much you or I or anyone may disagree with those or his tactics) but because of again, difficulty to socialize. again, I don't doubt that the latter influenced the former, but insanity & bitterness over personal shortcomings are two charges - warranted or not - that often been leveled at anyone with unusual ideas. but really you're not this dense, you know exactly what I mean.

and, it is off-topic but you're telling me that this is rootless:
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in "advanced" countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world.

to be sure, there is a lot of bullshit after that (& some valid stuff, & some stuff that is either valid or bullshit depending on your POV). it's a one-sided view - & "disaster" is hard to agree with - but not rootless. anyway, OT.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
But exactly how radical is K-punk, for example?

I don't know. not very, it would seem. I said I don't care about K-punk either way. I'm not interested in defending him. personally I think armchair theorizing w/o any kind of investment is fairly useless. but it seems there many valid criticism to be made w/o simply chalking it up to a writer's personal problems.
 

massrock

Well-known member
padraig (u.s.) said:
no, it has everything to do with that. with the context, as I said. it's the same tactic as claiming that feminists are just women who hate men b/c they can't get dates. anyway, you say that's what you meant - fine, leave it at that.
The context is me making an observation in a particular case. I'm telling you that when I say that it is has nothing to do with the 'radicalness' or 'marginality' of a position. As I say 'far from it', maybe even 'quite the opposite'. It might have something to do with solutions not actually being sought, however.

And it's not a 'tactic', I'm just saying what I think. Don't imagine that because you are stuck on the 'political' (in this case defending the 'radical', whatever that is, a rather abstract and nebulous notion I think, and against what, my clearly highly conservative and reactionary views?) that everyone is always and only playing that game. Ooh, somebody is using 'tactics' to try and 'marginalise' these poor somewhat widely read and relatively influential pop-crit-theory-writers who everyone agrees are completely like 'radical' (not self-proclaimed as). Towards what nefarious ends i don't know, but they are using 'tactics' and stuff. I'd better get in there and police the scene.
padraig (u.s.) said:
this isn't at all what I said or meant. which you know, of course. I do like the gratuitous "self-proclaimed". a classic underhanded dig.
Is it good to be a 'radical'? Is there something shameful about being a self-defined radical? Is it better to be deemed a radical by one's opponents? One's pals? Who gets to decide what is radical? I don't know, but I'm not sure why you think this is a dig of some kind. Should I just say 'radicals of all stripes' and assume that everyone knows what that means and agrees it's a de-facto good thing?
that is unfair, full stop. however, it's esp. pernicious in this context b/c it's an ad hominem attack that has long been hurled against radicals of all stripes.
'Radicals of all stripes'.

Mine's a Red Stripe.
 

poetix

we murder to dissect
We recognise radicalism in thought and action when a root that was hidden and sheltered is exposed and split. When someone claims that something is "radical", they may be making a claim for themselves ("see how radical this thing is that I like! See how radical my liking this thing makes me!"), but they may also be trying to indicate something other than themselves, something more interesting than their own miserable personality. In the latter case - when the person doing the pointing is not merely an attention-seeking narcissist (although they may be that also) - it's obtuse to keep staring at the finger rather than attending to the thing it's pointing at.
 

massrock

Well-known member
insanity & bitterness over personal shortcomings are two charges - warranted or not - that often been leveled at anyone with unusual ideas.
This hasn't escaped my notice, and also it is worth asking where the 'insanity' comes from in the first place and what defines it.

The thing is that in terms of the blog it so often seems to go nowhere, or that the finger points at nothing if you like, and maybe it doesn't really want to. But we'll see.

As I did say, it's not about 'personal problems'. But good old human stuff nonetheless, nothing horribly damning, and the very same kinds of foibles can be and no doubt are productive and creative in other ways.

'Warranted or not' though, see it's tricky, but I don't think it's valuable to avoid truth just because something that sounded similar was wrong.
 
Top