Fascism!
- Thread starter josef k.
- Start date
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
im happy we are able to enter into a truth process..
then forget about Mao.. you cant separate the Truth process from the betrayal of the Event (please, take it easy). this is always a possibility..
but we have to think clearly.
I'm thinking very clearly, Nikbee.
I can't forget about Mao, because Badiou's entire ontology is a justification of Maoism.
no.. you cannot make this claim.. i cannot refute this necessarily.. but i can say with confidence that thats not necessarily true. weak, i know.. but im not badiou.
mao is the source for much of badious examples of moments of Truth.. but so are scientists, mathematicians, poets, artists, etc.......
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
But, you do know that Badiou was a devoted Maoist, right? That he has repeatedly endorsed Maoism in public? That he's never renounced Mao (not that I've seen--please share if he has)?
See, historians saw what was going on during the Cultural Revolution and they all said--oh noes, another authoritarian regime is coming! Because historians see patterns that sometimes ideologues don't.
And they were right.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
The problem with "the Two" is the idea that there are only two choices: capitalism, or state-communism.
And that's just not all there is, no matter what you want to believe. There are many alternatives. And every available alternative to capitalism should be carefully considered. The future, if there will be one for humans, is too important to leave to easy, pre-existing categories.
The Two is a way of stalling progress for the sake of bipartisanship.
The U.S. is stuck in a binary "Two" system right now, and look where that gets us politically. Nowhere. The "Two" sides are really just One.
The military-industrial complex.
And that's just not all there is, no matter what you want to believe. There are many alternatives. And every available alternative to capitalism should be carefully considered. The future, if there will be one for humans, is too important to leave to easy, pre-existing categories.
The Two is a way of stalling progress for the sake of bipartisanship.
The U.S. is stuck in a binary "Two" system right now, and look where that gets us politically. Nowhere. The "Two" sides are really just One.
The military-industrial complex.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
im happy we are able to enter into a truth process..
Hah, so everytime someone agrees with you on something it's a "truth process".
That's exactly what I thought "truth procedure" meant...
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Oh, how cute. Labor camps! The last resort of the truly idiotic.
Believe me, I'd kill myself long before I'd ever dream of living in your stupid authoritarian regime.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Hey guys, when Nikbee rules the world, we're all going off to the camps!
I remember when the Nazis did that and drove my relatives to Amerikkkkaa.
But communists are nothing like fascists, no sirreee.
So, Nikbee, when are you going to start the revolution? Before, or after, you finish reading everything Badiou ever wrote?
I remember when the Nazis did that and drove my relatives to Amerikkkkaa.
But communists are nothing like fascists, no sirreee.
So, Nikbee, when are you going to start the revolution? Before, or after, you finish reading everything Badiou ever wrote?
what? but you dont agree with me.
you are not understanding the Two.. you are talking about something entirely different than what is meant by the Two.
Two = "antagonistic scission" "motor antagonism". NOT capitalism vs communism. the Two can be applied anywhere.. One and Two are differences of subjectivity itself.. two different modes of thinking, or even, two different ontologies.
"The Two is a way of stalling progress for the sake of bipartisanship. ", says you.. but no! this is precisely the One!
The One and the Two address dialectics. One says that dialectics is a synthesis (two fuses into one). Two says the essence of dialectics is the genesis of antagonism (one divides into two).
oh. my. goodness. the problems here are evident, right?
scottdisco
rip this joint please
bad phrasing on my part! i meant Nomad "cant separate the Truth process from the betrayal of the Event".
edit: to clarify, what is meant with the 'returns' to mao/lenin, is precisely this.. the Truth should be separated from the betrayal.. yes, the betrayal occurs, but there is use in "arresting", or "bracketing", the Truth, independent of the betrayal.. this does not deny the betrayal, but it arrests the truth (before egoistic self-interest betrays it), which can be used in a Truth process, to create a new Truth (this is dialectics of the Two).
Last edited:
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Yes, they are evident. All you have to do is sit back and let a Badiouite keep talking, and they'll betray their true colors sooner or later.
So, now that you've got me shaking in my boots--when is the revolution going to commence? Before or after your next Big Mac? Before or after you get your tax refund from the Obama administration?
If everybody is "equal" under communism, then why shouldn't everyone have the same right to voice their opinion/dissent without being shipped off to be tortured?
I suppose thinking is something best left to philospher-kings...I mean, the Party leaders?
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
You're a broken record of badly rehashed jargon. Congrats Nikbee.
I'm glad this is what communists amount to these days. It makes their little threats so much less believable.
no idea how to answer this.. its there. i have to try to understand it. thats all.. its not helpful if the words as signifiers are not clear..
i mean, in the beginning it was a little hard.. but i dont think badiou is a tricky writer.. very very clear really.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I dunno about Badiou - I also don't know what he means by "Maoism" when he endorses Maoism, how much his idea of Maoism has to do with anything that actually happened in China under Mao. actually Badiou's whole take on Maoism (or maybe that should be the take of Badiou fans on Badiou's take on Maoism) reminds me of La Chinoise.
more generally on the topic of Maoism tho; certainly it was an authoritarian regime that was responsible for a lot of terrible things - but - I've seen the argument advanced that it was better than what came before (warlords) & at least on par w/what came after, the current regime. not saying I endorse that argument. I think if you're talking about Maoism tho it's worth asking - is China better off then it was before Mao? I would say yes, probably. I'm sure many ppl would say that's in spite of & not b/c of Mao but I'm don't know enough about it to say either way.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
if you can't explain your points in even the most rudimentary fashion using jargon, then no, jargon isn't useful.
no offense nikbee but all this bollocks about Events & Truth Processes & so on is kinda laughable. it's just another measure of how little bearing any of this stuff has on reality. at least Zizek's entertaining.