> The Khmer Rouge and the Senderistas therefore function as a kind of
> "infinite judgment" on late capitalism in the precise Kantian sense
> of the term: they are to be located in a third domain beyond the
> inherent antagonism that defines the late-capitalist dynamic (the
> antagonism between the modernist drive and the fundamentalist
> backlash), since they radically reject both poles of the opposition.
> As such, they are-to put it in Hegelese an integral part of the
> notion of late capitalism: if one wants to comprise capitalism as a
> world-system, one must take into account its inherent negation, the
> "fundamentalism," as well as its absolute negation, the infinite
> judgment on it.
In the ideological field, this is true, though I'd want to qualify that "infinite judgement" with its antipode in the juridical field, i.e. the categorical imperative: no Senderismo/Khmer Rougism without Sendero/Pol Pot. The total truth of the bad collectivity is the bad truth of the total leader, or words to that effect (I'm horribly misquoting Kant, but don't have the appropriate texts at hand.)
Here's a noodle-baking thought which just occurred to me: might there be parallels between nation-state formation in the periphery gone haywire and Agent Smith (a.k.a. neoliberal capital) unplugged?
-- DRR