[lbo-talk] Bush and Foucault

bitch at pulpculture.org bitch at pulpculture.org
Mon Jun 11 17:51:21 PDT 2007


you know, the funny thing is, connecting this to the retribution thread... (no, andie, i'd be perfectly fine with us walking away from iraq, guantanamo, etc. without ever hunting down or punishing the evil doers. i want it to stop and use that energy for further advancing progressive social change. altho i've personally had bloody fantasies about the ex-exploiter -- since yes, you can't get hired when a background check reveals a civil lawsuit thankee very much! -- i could really care less about retribution in reality. it was good enough having the fantasy.

At any rate, i think part of what N does is remind us -- how shall I put this? -- how there is this desire for punishment and retribution that is, indeed, a really bad thing to base a marxist social movement on

from a detached distance, i've been observing various blog shitstorms of late. it becomes obvious that some of the venom is, indeed, a desire for retribution -- precisely because people lack any way of thinking or talking about structural oppression.

what i mean be that is this way -- and I've participated in this -- people who step over the line in progressive spaces (racism, sexism, whatever) are piled on endlessly, the whole thing escalates beyond belief, with charges of "you're a sexist" "me? a man with a history of fighting sexism? how dare you!?"

and it just escalates from there. this happens pretty regularly, where lefties/pwogs reveal their inability to grasp that their enemy really isn't specific person or type of person (yuppie or academic, f'rinstance), but a set of social relations and processes that cannot be undone by giving individuals severe educations.

All the progressive/lefty/whatever talk about supposedly understanding how oppression works reveals itself as a sham.

Because that resentiment is present, I think, is good reason for us to be wary of not addressing it and seeking ways to create political practices that mitigate it here and now -- tothe best of our ability.

and no, there's not much of an argument I have for why I think it's bad. *shrug* I just do.

At 05:24 AM 6/11/2007, you wrote:


> >
> > From: "Mr. WD" <mister.wd at gmail.com>
> > Date: 2007/06/09 Sat AM 03:19:11 GMT
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bush and Foucault
>
>
>Sorry -- just caught up with this thread. It parallels a thread on
>Nietzsche (which unfortunately now carries the subject line "Re :
>PARAGRAPHS PLEASE").
>
>I agree with Charles Brown:
>
>Ressentiment seems to be directly concerned with class struggle, but from
>the standpoint and in favor of the ruling classes over the ruled classes,
>a sort of direct anatagonism with Marxism. That's why I say N. seems like
>an anti-Marx, not a complement to Marx.
>
>I also agree with W.D.:
>
>That said_ the CW movement is very much a political movement rooted in
>morality and a "left" interpretation of the gospels: their political
>action is motivated by strong moral convictions rather than a desire to
>empower the working class. Basically, the CWs take very seriously the
>Catholic doctrine that poverty is a sacred condition -- you should serve
>the poor and live amongst them, embrace 'voluntary poverty,' etc.
>
>I would extend the criticism to liberation theology: "the option for the
>poor" is not almsgiving, but it is also not international socialism
>either. But that comes from a particular tradition, not from morality in
>general (another tradition sees success in business as a sign of
>election). I cannot agree that:
>
>Okay, how can this [ Nietzschean?] view at all be reconciled with an
>egalitarian, anti-capitalist political project? I think the answer lies
>in that the left seems to be divided between those who view politics as a
>_moral_ struggle versus those who view politics as a _power_
>struggle: The moral folks see their own moral superiority as their
>primary advantage, and they're driven by essentially moral considerations:
>they're the ones who want "justice" for workers, minorities, women,
>etc.. Compare this stance with that of the power folks, for whom
>"justice" is irrelevant -- they'll make their own justice damnit: they
>don't need a moral imperative or any other ethereal justification to seize
>the means of production -- they'll do it because they _want_ to. Fuck
>"justice"! For the power folks, politics needn't be personal, your
>adversaries don't have to be rotten people -- its okay to respect your
>adversaries -- you just have to beat them.
>
>This reminds me of Allen Wood's "immoralist" Marx, interpreting Marx's
>urging of "despotic inroads" on the rights of property as conceding
>morality and justice to the bourgeoisie and just mounting a thuggish
>attack. I see no dichotomy between seeking justice (for all humanity) and
>seizing power.
>
>J.D.
>
>-----------------------------------------
>Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
>Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube

Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list