Anti-Capitalist Fake-ism

[massrock]

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.

Industrial Revolution, Capitalism, Patriarchy.

We took the wrong step years ago...

 

[Gavin]

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.

This is such a tepid critique, though, just really disingenuous. From what I understand, Kpunk was active in union organizing, but was frustrated at how ineffective it was at accomplishing the goals he felt important. His project, which he seems to share with others writing for Zero Books and elsewhere, is to THINK through the impasse of traditional left politics and perhaps offer alternative forms. To disassociate thought (and reading and writing) and acting is completely false, designed to shut down discussion, not further it.

I believe poetix's advice about examining his arguments instead of these bizarre, clearly envious, fantasies of how he does or does not conduct himself in life to be a far more productive angle. "What are you DOOOOing?" How the fuck do you know what he does?

There IS something to how certain forms of left activism is a supplement of capitalism (Zizek has written loads on this), but whether Kpunk's ideas are or are not should be argued. Obviously no one (self included) has read the book.

 

[scottdisco]

From what I understand, Kpunk was active in union organizing, but was frustrated at how ineffective it was at accomplishing the goals he felt important. His project, which he seems to share with others writing for Zero Books and elsewhere, is to THINK through the impasse of traditional left politics and perhaps offer alternative forms. To disassociate thought (and reading and writing) and acting is completely false, designed to shut down discussion, not further it.

good point.

I believe poetix's advice about examining his arguments instead of these bizarre, clearly envious, fantasies of how he does or does not conduct himself in life to be a far more productive angle.

(my emphasis)

eh? what? all of us? envious? really?

There IS something to how certain forms of left activism is a supplement of capitalism (Zizek has written loads on this), but whether Kpunk's ideas are or are not should be argued. Obviously no one (self included) has read the book.

also a fair point.

 

[zhao]

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. ted kaczynski comes to mind as an extreme case; before he was caught the media romanticized the hell out of him, this mysterious revolutionary figure. then once it came out he had a beard and lived off the grid in a cabin in the woods in Montana, he was "crazy". it was an unhappy childhood, an inability to make friends, etc - anything but his actual - agree or not - critique (tbc I'm not defending the man or his actions, just pointing out the way in which this charge - that it's merely personal problems - is used to undermine & marginalize). 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.

interesting you voiced no objection when people had an unfair go at me by bringing up my childhood in relation to my critique (if it was that) of scientific empiricism in the Mysterious Thread. not going to guess the reason...

 

[Mr. Tea]

interesting you voiced no objection when people had an unfair go at me by bringing up my childhood in relation to my critique (if it was that) of scientific empiricism in the Mysterious Thread. not going to guess the reason...

That's because you've mentioned your upbringing again and again and again (seriously, I'd go back and search your old posts if I could be bothered) and because we'd have to be idiots not to make some connection between that and your equally well-known attitude towards the scientific worldview. It's not like we snuck into your room and read your diary while you were out, is it?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

The context is me making an observation in a particular case.

that's not the context, that's the actual statement. but either way, I said "fair enough" once explained yourself more clearly. point stands in general anyway, separate from what you meant.

Is it good to be a 'radical'?

not necessarily. I didn't say it was. there's nothing inherently good or bad about it.

I was using "radical" as shorthand for any thinking that's unusual or unpopular, not just politics, i.e. Galileo or early Christians. or the use of psychiatric incarceration as a tool against dissidents in the U.S.S.R. it was a general observation.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

interesting you voiced no objection when people had an unfair go at me by bringing up my childhood

I can only concur w/Tea that you're the one who brought it up first. many times. specifically as a reason why you had a better understanding of the spiritual (if you'll go back, I believe - if I'm not mistaken - that people actually called you on this at the time).

 

[zhao]

poor k-punk... bearing the brunt of everything i disagree with the theoretical approach and what i dislike about "these sorts of people"...

the discourse exists in a symbiotic relationship with it's supposed enemy.

more specifically, i think the kind of symbiosis here is parasitic.

OK.

"We" are all in this together (both dissident types as well as the rest of the population of the first world, who, at the risk of being condescending, maybe do not realize the extent of their slavery) -- we all want less injustice, less dehumanization, less "mind control"; and for those of us who are a bit more extreme, to more or less "destroy capitalism".

what makes these theory types think their "work" is so effective toward this goal? what is K-Punk's ultimate approach - to cleverly mope in isolation?

theory is excellent at describing the problems in detail and meta-detail. not much else.

seems to me it takes not only the mind and its analytical faculties, which are actually in some ways probably less useful to the task at hand, but also the heart and the "soul".

Capitalism is not so much afraid of reason. reason it can absorb easily. i think empathy and intuition and re-connection with ourselves and each other, through which we realize that we actually don't need all the bullshit Capitalism makes us think we need, i think this is what the system is afraid of.

finally, image of our enemy as an invincible, omni-present and omnipotent entity which is impossible to defeat, encompassing every aspect of reality, so much so that there is no more an "outside" -- i think this is giving Capitalism a little too much credit.

sure the permissiveness of neo-liberalism is not what it seems, sure pluralism in the arts signal a fake freedom, all of these things i agree with, and enjoy reading the dissection of these dynamics -- but sometimes it really is as simple as switching off the TV. giving up driving. and spending one's time not working and not consuming.

there are loads of things people can do, and they ARE doing them, to defy the way of life pushed onto them ---- EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT READ POST-STRUCTURALISM.

and this is what i mean by these theory types not being interested in what they claim to be interested in (destroying capitalism) -- if you just sit and do nothing and try to empty your mind 1 hour each day, you can immediately start to wake up from the hypnosis of Capitalism. it takes dedication and discipline, but it can be as simple as that, to start pushing away psychic vampiric forces, and to re-claim your Self. -- but these theory types would never realize or admit to this simple truth, preferring to blah blah blah on and on in circles.

 

[zhao]

That's because you've mentioned your upbringing again and again and again (seriously, I'd go back and search your old posts if I could be bothered) and because we'd have to be idiots not to make some connection between that and your equally well-known attitude towards the scientific worldview. It's not like we snuck into your room and read your diary while you were out...

right. i am open about my past, and i have already made the connection myself, between my world view and background.

so it was still a weak ass bitch move on the part of you know who, and you 2 barking next to her, to attempt to discredit my argument.

anyway, lets not get side tracked.

 

[luka]

i would like to see kpunk writing sci-fi novels. i think he would be quite good at it. his concepts are more suited to that field than to theory i think and it would force him to make his prose tighter, less journalese....
i might buy this book for old times sake though.....

 

[vimothy]

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.

I realise I've not been explaining myself particularly well. I'm always torn between wanting to be precise, and not wanting to come across like a complete dick. And so probably doing neither.

I totally disagree with this,

God, how did anyone with half a brain ever think this was a good idea?

For instance. I think that it betrays some of the limits of the market metaphor. Qualifications are not money. If more people have them, they don't automatically become worth less. If we have lots of engineers, perhaps the wage paid to engineers will be less. But on the other hand, we have lots of cheap engineers building stuff, as opposed to lots of people working in call centres. In fact there are lots of very good reasons for policy makers to want to increase participation in HE. The problem is not the goal, but the methods chosen to achieve it.

 

[zhao]

this just in via email from a friend who shall remain anonymous:

his most interesting moments are when you find him attacking things which (one could be forgiven for thinking) he embodies... the grey vampires, for example. isn't k-punk himself kind of a grey vampire?

What you ultimately brush-up against is a unwillingness to consider his own power-position in a serious way. I don't mean his tyrannical, pathological bitterness, etc, I mean questions like: What is the function of theory? Who is the theorist? And then again: What is the vision?

When you try and extract a political vision from k-punk, you don't really get much. Why? Because there is no concrete aim. Let's say, for instance, I had the vision of a single, democratic state in Palestine. It might be a fantasy, but there are things I could do: try and open up some liminal spaces, disrupt certain rituals, create some others. What you get here is a kind of negation (''this is bad'') and a kind of imaginary solution (''this is good, or was good...'') but that's about it. I suspect this is true of all of the Zero authors. They are all sort-of-whining artists (it's form of being, like hunger artists). There's something very British about it. The British love complaining.

It seems to me that the theory (''anti-capitalist realism'') is fatal politically. Real politics looks to the concrete, and means of intervention: in space, in rituals, etc. But in the end, capitalism is an abstraction. What you get here is an abstract opposition to an abstraction: rival aesthetics, antagonist ideological stances, and so on. But it remains, as some have said, parasitic on its object. This is where the critique of capitalism becomes very problematic. Because the concept of ''capitalism'' can be overdetermined into representing almost anything you want (the hardcore continuum, etc...) the partisans get backed into a position of pure negation. You are against capitalism - but capitalism is really just the name for what you are against. So it's circular. The junkie loves the needle. If I say I'm engaged, I'm engaged. If I believe I'm against it, then I am against it. And this is who I am: against this. And this is where the whole discourse becomes very self-serving, and ultimately, not about capitalism at all, but about the construction of a marketable, oppositional identity.

 

[vimothy]

I suspect this is true of all of the Zero authors.

Even Daniel?

It seems to me that the theory (''anti-capitalist realism'') is fatal politically. Real politics looks to the concrete, and means of intervention: in space, in rituals, etc. But in the end, capitalism is an abstraction. What you get here is an abstract opposition to an abstraction: rival aesthetics, antagonist ideological stances, and so on. But it remains, as some have said, parasitic on its object. This is where the critique of capitalism becomes very problematic. Because the concept of ''capitalism'' can be overdetermined into representing almost anything you want (the hardcore continuum, etc...) the partisans get backed into a position of pure negation. You are against capitalism - but capitalism is really just the name for what you are against. So it's circular.

OTM.

 

[zhao]

OTM.

much better than i could have.

if only i spent all that time on theory instead of music and design...

edit: nah.

 

[Gavin]

Ok, that last paragraph is definitely worth mulling over, but there is a relevance of theory to politics.

Let's say, for instance, I had the vision of a single, democratic state in Palestine.

For "action" on this issue, there is are implicit (and explicit) ideas of what "democracy," "the state," "justice," "effective action," etc. This is where theory comes in -- to think about what these mean, to direct the energy in the best places. How do you invent rituals without theory? I have no problem with critiquing Kpunk's theory, but I have a problem with dismissing theory as somehow irrelevant to politics.

 

[vimothy]

dismissing theory as somehow irrelevant to politics

Is that the real issue, though? Seems like the reverse is more pertinent...

Good to have you back, BTW, Gavin!

 

[Gavin]

Is that the real issue, though? Seems like the reverse is more pertinent...

Good to have you back, BTW, Gavin!

There were some posts upthread that either implied or stated outright that thought is somehow distinct from action, and therefore pointless. What exactly do you mean by "reverse"?

Zhao, you would agree that certain theories inform your graphic design and music production, yes? Why not politics?

If I believe I'm against it, then I am against it. And this is who I am: against this. And this is where the whole discourse becomes very self-serving, and ultimately, not about capitalism at all, but about the construction of a marketable, oppositional identity.

Again, isn't this reading too much into the person? Is not writing a form of activity, not merely "believing" you are against something, but actively resisting?

What kind of "marketable oppositional identity" construction is going on? Militant dysphoria, is this not an attempt to theorize a non-marketable oppositional, if not identity, then subject position? One that is not merely anticapitalist, but withdraws from the entire dialectic? I don't know if this is possible, and I don't believe that any identity can be non-marketable (what is identity if not branding?), but again, I am not sure I see this going on in Kpunk's work.

 

[vimothy]

There were some posts upthread that either implied or stated outright that thought is somehow distinct from action, and therefore pointless. What exactly do you mean by "reverse"?

What Zhao said above (quoted, in fact): that theory should not dismiss politics. Although, it certainly is the case that theory is not irrelevant. Like any good ant I know that "philosophers have only changed the world, the point is to describe it". Or something.

And did anyone really say that thought is distinct from action and therefore pointless?

 

[Gavin]

What Zhao said above (quoted, in fact): that theory should not dismiss politics. Although, it certainly is the case that theory is not irrelevant. Like any good ant I know that "philosophers have only changed the world, the point is to describe it". Or something.

Well, what I see the Zero books stuff (what I am aware of anyway) as doing is dismissing a form of left politics that doesn't work any more, that assumes certain features of capitalism and liberal democracy are permanent. They aretheorizing different forms of, if not activism, then action. Maybe this is overreaching (to what extent are these forms of action no longer working?). This is clearly in the vein of certain Zizekian political ideas.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender

These words simply demonstrate that today’s liberal-democratic state and the dream of an ‘infinitely demanding’ anarchic politics exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic agents do the ethical thinking, and the state does the work of running and regulating society. Critchley’s anarchic ethico-political agent acts like a superego, comfortably bombarding the state with demands; and the more the state tries to satisfy these demands, the more guilty it is seen to be. In compliance with this logic, the anarchic agents focus their protest not on open dictatorships, but on the hypocrisy of liberal democracies, who are accused of betraying their own professed principles.

The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they don’t agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government policy – will be possible also in Iraq!’

This is why I find the Keynesian nostalgia so strange, though I recognize that it's also infused with a mourning for modernism.

And did anyone really say that thought is distinct from action and therefore pointless?

I find that sentiment lurking in statements such as

What I'm saying is, how 'radical' are you really if all you do is think/read/write radical thoughts?

but I am not really interested in further castigating any one who is not really interested in thinking about this.

 

[vimothy]

Well, what I see the Zero books stuff (what I am aware of anyway) as doing is dismissing a form of left politics that doesn't work any more, that assumes certain features of capitalism and liberal democracy are permanent.

Could you elaborate on that a bit?

I find that sentiment lurking in statements such as

Perhaps you are both talking past one another. Of course, the position you described (thought is pointless) is too much, but it seems to me that the how-radical-are-you quote is also asking, what does it mean to be a radical, and so is actually quite close to Zizek, above. Perhaps.