Fascism!

[josef k.]

OK, Badiou and communism... I think he is very clear that this must have and need have nothing whatsoever to do with the imposition of any party or state at all, temporary or otherwise. Indeed he would seem to agree with nomad here in the sense that the means is the end.

And yet... there is a way in which the machinery that Badiou is employing to distribute this message is already creating forms of hierarchy, a meta-discourse, a certain elite...

I am unsure of the status of his own political organization in France (http://membres.lycos.fr/orgapoli/) but at least in the Anglosphere, Badiou is coming out of the academy... Indeed, as far as I can tell, the players in this network are all academics; a fact I find disturbingly class-bound. I think that this says something significant about his politics, and their limits.

Incidentally is it entirely appropriate that this discussion be taking place on the Fascism! thread? I'm not sure how it ended up here but there are many communism and Badiou threads.

Dissensus only really has one thread.

 

[massrock]

I think that this says something significant about his politics, and their limits.

Maybe, but also it's early days and ideas must sometimes originate somewhere. I don't completely mistrust educated people.

Anyway, I see no reason why I can not be working class, most definitely not of the academy, and yet still be in favour of pretentious crap.

 

[massrock]

What I don't get is why Badiou bothers with the word communist at all, it seems kind of bloody minded and idiotic when not only is it so readily open to misinterpretation but it's also not really what he's talking about anyway. Weird. Maybe someone could explain that to me.

 

[josef k.]

What I don't get is why Badiou bothers with the word communist at all, it seems kind of bloody minded and idiotic when not only is it so readily open to misinterpretation but it's also not really what he's talking about anyway. Weird. Maybe someone could explain that to me.

An excellent question.

 

[josef k.]

Maybe, but also it's early days and ideas must sometimes originate somewhere. I don't completely mistrust educated people.

Anyway, I see no reason why I can not be working class, most definitely not of the academy, and yet still be in favour of pretentious crap.

For sure on both counts. But I am skeptical of forms of politics which emerge from academic milieus, from careerist impulses, and I see both of these factors at work in Badiou's reception and rise. Of course, there may be more to it then that.

Pretentious crap is definitely not confined to any particular class or space. The academy is only a kind of condensation chamber for it. Where pretentious crap turns into absolute knowledge, as Hegel would say.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

1. It seems that his definition of the communist hypothesis, which a lot of this hinges on, is that 'the subordination of labour to a dominant class...is not inevitable; it can be overcome. The communist hypothesis is that a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour...'

...This is then the radical underpinning of a process whereby massive inequality of wealth distribution is largely eliminated and the existence of a coercive state will no longer appear a necessity.

I think he is very clear that this must have and need have nothing whatsoever to do with the imposition of any party or state at all, temporary or otherwise.

alright, but then you made the point that I immediately thought of reading that:

What I don't get is why Badiou bothers with the word communist at all...

b/c that hypothesis sounds much closer to anarchism (or a synonymous term if that one has too much baggage). I mean, communism minus the state & minus the Party equals...?

it's not just that he identifies as a communist tho - he also associates with other people & theorists who call themselves communists, advocates communism (whatever he means by that) as a public figure, etc. etc.

I expect it's more to do with him, & anyone else who claims the term "communist", than the term or concept itself? certainly it has a kind of cachet - much moreso in Europe than here, the idea of any academic calling himself a communist being taken even half-seriously in the US is utterly laughable - & also, I'm not the first one to make this point, it's safe. a way to be in opposition w/o really having to risk anything.

 

[josef k.]

Though, a ragtag coalition. Ranciere claimed at the Birkbeck conference that there was no communism, besides for the communism of the intellect... Zizek is more of general line kind of guy: "This is what every radical leftist must think..." is a common rhetorical move for him. Badiou has a taste for more universal proclamations, which are sometimes quite hollow (Israel), sometimes quite insightful (War on Terror) occasionally very unwise (Viva Pol Pot!)...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Maybe, but also it's early days and ideas must sometimes originate somewhere. I don't completely mistrust educated people.

neither do I. I am skeptical of anything which seems so undershot with an air of unreality (a subjective feeling, admittedly).

also I thought there were (at least) 2 things going on - 1) a general critique of Badiou, which I'm frankly not very interested in & 2) a more general discussion on whether communism or "communism" has any kind of validity & either what lessons we can take from it as ideal & in practice. I'm much more interested in the latter.

I was just trying to sort out in my head actually what self-described Communist regimes haven't been utter disasters. all I could come up with was the Sandinistas, tho it's hard to call them pure Communists - it seems their ideology, like a lot of Latin American revolutionaries, was more syncretic. nonetheless. Cuba & Vietnam were mixed bags I guess? other than that I can't think of anything. anyone else? *EDIT* I know pretty much nothing about Angola & Mozambique so I've no idea what their Communist regimes did while in power.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Though, a ragtag coalition.

all the more reason why it is an appealing option for some people.

 

[josef k.]

Personally, I would find it more appealing if it was more ragtag. It really isn't ragtag enough. Too many earnest, white graduate students!

 

[nikbee]

except that this is not true at all.

perhaps it insists on some abstract "we"...

but in reality it is always the Party & its elites, in some cases a single man & those who move in his orbit, in other cases small cliques of Party elites, either way it's the same. in fact anyone who has insisted on "we" (the Left SRs & anarchists, the Mahknovists, the Kronstadt sailors, the anarchists again in Spain, the workers & students of May 1968 who were sold out by the Stalinist trade union leadership, and on, and on...) has been ruthlessly crushed. Communism has always been for the elites & the secret police apparatus they used to maintain themselves...this is in reality you understand, not some bullshit mythical "we"...

a big problem is that the "we" is unmanageable beyond a few hundred people (& even that maybe stretching it). when there are too many people for everyone to know each other face-to-face then the "we" is unmanageable. of course, that abstract "we" would be harmless had it not lead, time & time again, to bureaucratic institutions erecting gulags & slaughterhouses & monuments of bleached skulls in the service of "we"...

i cant accept this.. i cant accept that an ontology of 'we', in practice, is inherently bound to fail.. communism is simply the signifier for this 'we'. this is essentially badious point, if we abandon the 'we' then we are abandoning any notion of collective action. lets let everyone worry about themselves, and be done with it. i dont think there is anything particularly provocative here. "In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself."

so, is 'communism', as signifier for 'we', pointless? at least from my experience here, its not looking good.

and to use nomads interpretation of the Two.. even if it is capitalism vs communism, is this not valid? this is a face-to-face with a radically opposed subjectivity.

 

[josef k.]

"We" is not a magic word...

 

[vimothy]

Rampant idealism.

 

[nikbee]

Rampant idealism.

Rampant nihilism.

im not sure its that simple vim..

 

[vimothy]

To critique "communism" is not equal to nihilism.

You're argument is flawed:

Communism is collective action.

We don't want to let go of collective action.

Therefore, we don't want to let go of communism.​

Communism is a solution to an economic problem, but the reason that it fails is political-economic. How does "we" translate into action? How does "we" even make a decision?

Anyway, is Badiou even a Marxist? I'm not so sure.

 

[nikbee]

To critique "communism" is not equal to nihilism.

You're argument is flawed:

Communism is collective action.

We don't want to let go of collective action.

Therefore, we don't want to let go of communism.​

Communism is a solution to an economic problem, but the reason that it fails is political-economic. How does "we" translate into action? How does "we" even make a decision?

Anyway, is Badiou even a Marxist? I'm not so sure.

oops. sorry vim.. that nihilism was aimed at you.. not communism.

edit: im gonna be gone for a while.. thanks everyone. lost a good amount of sleep, but it felt good.. even if some of yall want me to return to the ustase! that one didnt feel good.

 

[vimothy]

I am not a nihilist. I have time for idealism, but only WRT questions of morality.

 

[vimothy]

Look -- even if we accept, arguendo, your premise (that communism equals collective action), the political-economic problem remains the same.

 

[josef k.]

Anyway, is Badiou even a Marxist? I'm not so sure.

Badiou states in "Metapolitics" that he is not a Marxist... that Marxism has had its day, also (I think in the same volume) that "Marxism doesn't exist." As for the other thing, Badiou offers no political economy; the economy is not so important for him; he is interested in ontology, not economics, and derives his philosophy from Platonic principles... There is a desire to receive Badiou as a Marxist-style master-thinker (the libidinal goo) but Badiou might be more interesting if the distance is kept...

 

[Mr. Tea]

You're argument is flawed:

So's you're spelling.