On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:09:53 -0400 Gordon Fitch <gcf at panix.com> wrote:
> I reject the _values_ which make these incarnations of domination and
subjugation desirable.
Some degree of subjugation is necessary for subjectivity. It isn't that subjugation is desirable, but a certain degree of it makes desire possible. Without a doubt power and domination is fundamental to social relations, it also makes the psyche tick. The more we try to take flight from this the more it will come back with a vengeance. What concerns me is the way in which these relations become depoliticized. So it isn't power as such that I'm concerned about, nor the desire to be a dominator or dominated - but more the way in which power pretends to be something it is not.
> It might well be the case that people who adopted values like mine would be
worse off or unhappier than those who didn't; I don't see that as something one
could predict in advance.
That doesn't make for a very good argument though... ; )
> Now, one of the things you say is that the application of the ideas of
responsibility and accountability to State institutions and activities (will or
may) support a fundamental challenge to their existence. Looking at recent
history, this does not appear to be the case; the bourgeoisie seem highly adept
at presenting various mummeries to the public which simulate responsibility of
some sort while they go about their business as usual.
Well, it is almost impossible for a corporation to remain "local" - in the sense of operating on a non-expansive model - without being taken over or bought off. This likely wasn't the case all that long ago. So I'd say this is a tremendous shift in the way in which corporations see themselves and operate. In a way, corporations are holding each other accountable: if you don't expand, you die. Naturally, I'm shifting this in the wrong direction for those of us on the left... Corporations that insist on "national" boundaries I suspect also find themselves starving for investment... and I suspect that corporations exert a high degree of pressure on political bodies to transform themselves or perish - not to mention challenging the 'existence' of environmental laws... tax laws... and I'll bet nearly everyone on this list knows more about this stuff than I do...
> and most great corporations would cease to exist in their present form as the
rich tried to hide their personal wealth from the threat of lawsuits and their
persons from the threat of criminal proceedings.
Not to mention from take-over bids...
> Instead, we still see people earnestly taking the oxymoron of
_good_government_ seriously.
Absolutely. Chantal Mouffe's latest book, Democratic Paradoxes, has a section on the emerging emphasis on consensus-based politics - where "consensus" is simply assumed... and she highlights the way in which this is present in Blair and Clinton...
> Indeed, even if one is merely interested in improving the quality of the
mummery, I suggest that challenging the existence of the government, the
corporations, and other agencies of the State -- if it spread around a bit and
became halfway popular -- might produce a much higher and more satisfactory
level of it and do people some material good.
When I taught Nozick last year... it really made people think. I suspect you are correct... I'm not sure that no-government is a desirable state of affairs... but certainly it is important to consider and think about. High inspirational value, I say.
> If you strike at the State, you had better try to kill it.
An ethical act par excellence... knowingly striking at what makes your very existence possible, desirable and enjoyable.
ken