The question concerning the technology of the culture wars.
Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine
- Thread starter baboon2004
- Start date
The question concerning the technology of the culture wars.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I meant Marxists vs. Post-Marxists vs. whatever stuff that nomad was referring to.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
not to usurp your answer Nomad, but, couldn't it be either or both?
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
not sure how serious you are but isn't that line actually pretty controversial among military theorists?
though it does apply neatly to the culture wars.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
the speaker, the audience they're speaking too (it could also be oneself, as a thought), the place (Geography, I guess), etc. there's a word for this - relativism, philosopher friends? that's probably a loaded and/or discredited term I don't know.
Foucault, whom I remain clueless about, asked:
"Should one then turn around the formula and say that politics is war pursued by other means? Perhaps if one wishes to always to maintain a difference between war and politics, one should suggest rather that this multiplicity of force-relations can be coded - in part and never totally - either in the form of "war" or in the form of "politics"; there would be here two different strategies (but ready to tip over into each other) for integrating these unbalanced, heterogeneous, unstable, tense force relations."
(In 1976, during his course at the College de France "Society Must be Defended")
EDIT: There are lots of criticisms of Clauswitz, though - no?
"Should one then turn around the formula and say that politics is war pursued by other means? Perhaps if one wishes to always to maintain a difference between war and politics, one should suggest rather that this multiplicity of force-relations can be coded - in part and never totally - either in the form of "war" or in the form of "politics"; there would be here two different strategies (but ready to tip over into each other) for integrating these unbalanced, heterogeneous, unstable, tense force relations."
(In 1976, during his course at the College de France "Society Must be Defended")
EDIT: There are lots of criticisms of Clauswitz, though - no?
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
John Keegan. I recently read A History of Warfare, which I thoroughly enjoyed, & he spends a good deal of time trashing Von Clausewitz. how fairly I don't know, I've also seen essays slagging off Keegan for misreading Clausewitz. anyway I'd think John Keegan is pretty influential in the field of military history, if an old geezer these days, so perhaps not influential on current policy.
basically a big piece of his argument was that war is cultural & not -just- a continuation of policy by other means.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
that's an interesting quote, though I suspect too ah, ambiguous perhaps for military theorists? tho I know very little about military theory beyond the bits & pieces I pick up (Vimothy you're an Abu Muqawama reader aren't you?).
to elaborate on Keegan's "war is cultural" off the top of my head; like, for example, the Mongols (& in general Central Asian nomads) were so successful militarily in large part due to their culture - everyone was used to violence, males grew up masters of riding & archery, they were very disciplined from generations of living hard on very meager resources - though this stuff also proved to be their undoing cause they were great at conquering but terrible at ruling those they'd conquered - or to do so they adopted the sedentary lifestyles of their subjects & lost what had made them so fearsome in the first place. anyway...
vimothy
yurp
Sure, right. But you have to remember why and for who Clausewitz was writing. War is obviously very complex, and not always the clashing columns of drilled soldiers fighting for the nation. And sure, people go to war for lots of reasons. But Clausewitz's advice should not be forgotten. If we look at war as someone about to fight it, for instance, what we are about to do is kill and be killed. Yet massacres are not the subject of On War. He is writing about something else. Consider Israel: it can do this -- unleash hell -- at will on any side. But what, in practice, does this mean?
"But what, in practice, does this mean?"
But politics is soaked in psychologies, and infinite numbers of micropolitical actors, who the representatives of state are, within the state, alternately vying for, attempting to suppress or oppressed. How do these demographics grow, reduce or increase or size, acquire positions of influence or lose them.
The war makes the State.
The State makes war.
But politics is soaked in psychologies, and infinite numbers of micropolitical actors, who the representatives of state are, within the state, alternately vying for, attempting to suppress or oppressed. How do these demographics grow, reduce or increase or size, acquire positions of influence or lose them.
The war makes the State.
The State makes war.
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I didn't mean it was wrong, just that there were differing views. or not even differing, additional is perhaps a better term. I'm sure there are worthwhile things to be found in Clausewitz. also I've never read On War.
and surely for Israel the cost of doing so is too high, in terms both material (the support it they'd lose) & moral (the support they'd lose, the complaints of a fairly large segment of their own population). if the benefit of doing so had came to outweigh the costs it would mean that things had become seriously, irredeemably f***ed.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
right, thanks. though tbc I'm not saying that reading war as a cultural rather than a political acitivity is more valid, merely that that's what Keegan thinks. probably both readings are useful.