Thus, he is opposed to anarchists because, to his mind, their political practice does not address how to deal with power as it operates outside the state. Now, he's quite wrong about this since anarchists are very interested in they way they, themselves, as people creating alternative institutions, are capable of reinstantiating relations of repressive and oppressive power. In other words, not only are they interested, the ways they organize themselves are acts of conscious social reproduction, attempts to avoid or at least mitigate the tendency for power to operate outside of the state in civil society - political associations, family, community, etc.
Nonetheless, although he is wrong about anarchists who he mistakenly thinks are obsessed with state power and ignorant to the ways power operates in, say, the domestic sphere between het partners or between people engaged in left political struggle, Robin still articulates a view that has implications for political practice. For him, this means that you wouldn't only concern yourself with the power wielded by centralized political states but would also examine the way power operates in, say, the workplace.
How you'd actually do this is unclear. I don't have a sense that he employs a marxist theory of the relationship between the economy/state, so I haven't figured that part out about his worldview. Suffice it to say that he is definitely opposed to a politics that is oblivious to the idea that there might be a repressive apparatus in what he calls the private sphere by which he means family, workplace, civic associations.
At 10:53 AM 1/22/2012, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> that's not what i meant, though I certainly understand your point in
> general (though def NOT in agreement that robin helps see the world more
> clearly)
>
>Here's a better explanation of what I meant: Can you say why Robin thinks
>you should read his book and by his claims and not the claims of others
>writing about conservatives and reactionaries. Do you walk away from the
>book saying, "woah. some people think conservatives are like this because
>X. Some people think it's X, but also Y. Corey Robin comes along and says,
>no no, it's Z. Those people who talk about X and Y aren't providing the
>best way to think about this."
>
>One way to do that might be to connect how the theory (he's not doing
>substantive emprical theory, which is what I was talking about) to
>political practice to show how, following this trajectory, one will likely
>make _these_ political commitments and not others. You don't have to argue
>the benefit of your position on that basis, but it is one way.
>
>In our case, since we are talking about Marxism and about how to change
>the world, when it comes to this interpretation of Marx or that, this way
>of looking at money and credit or that, then it's imperative. For people
>like Robin, who mostly aren't writing political screeds because they care
>to change the world, I really don't care about the pratice question. Then,
>it's like following the ponies without making any bets. Whee, look at that
>pony go! Awww. poor horsey. Crashed and burned. It's, as Carrol says, a
>matter of intelectual curiosity. But nothing Robin has written, so far, as
>struck me as something that matters to the way the world works - there's
>no empirical work going on here. A lot of general claims, but no
>generalizable claims.
>
>In a follow up post to Carrol, I cleared up this issue with some
>illustrations of how theory tends to shape political action. The way
>anarchist view the state for example - as hopelessly fucked by capitalism
>- will shape their political practice in obvious ways: their political
>practice will be to operate outside and around the state whenever
>possilbe. A person like Jodi Dean, who has a theory about the state as a
>little more autonomous from the capitalist economy - I think because she
>sees contradictions that create gaps and fissures that can be leveraged
>within the context of exiting state formations -- will then see it as
>worthwhile to engage in political practices that involve *taking over* the
>state and using it to achieve a socialist future.
>
>At 09:58 AM 1/22/2012, Nathan wrote:
>>On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 06:13:37PM -0500, shag carpet bomb wrote:
>> > I've just been reading Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind. One
>> > complaint: he doesn't give me any reason to care that his view is
>> > preferred to anyone else's...
>> >
>> > I have no idea what the difference is for political practice...
>> >
>> > So, that's my question here. What difference does it make to
>> > political practice?
>>
>>I've only heard Robin interviewed a few times but I find the broad
>>strokes of his concept very helpful for recognizing when something is
>>tending towards something i'd like to see, and something I wouldn't.
>>Which is a long way of saying that it helps me to sort things quicker.
>>
>>Maybe that's "pre-practical" but having my thoughts ("theory") more
>>organized helps me in I think a subtle way, at least as far as
>>navigating around anyone who's got some funny ideas. It is more a
>>hand-to-hand sort of practical than a boots-on-the-ground thing, i
>>think.
>>
>>I think most people tend to know that 'the people' are pretty good at
>>'autonomous self-organization', at replacing management and cops with
>>something as effacious and more democratic, etc., etc., but that it's easy
>>to fall into some inchoate blend of left-meets-right elitism-meets-populism
>>nonsense that wants to elect Ron Paul to help pass laws against
>>monopolies, which are run by immigrants, when really there are lots of
>>good natives to be CEO, to help fund environmental clean-ups, etc., etc.
>>It's just kind of a matter of making that more obvious. I'm surprised by
>>how many 'liberal' types don't understand elaborate on the difference between
>>a 'small business' and a co-op or worker-owned business, when the reality
>>that differentiates a worker-owned vs. a small business owner-owned place
>>gets lived out on eight-hour shifts. If nothing else that's practical, if not
>>immediately political.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Nathan
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>--
>http://cleandraws.com
>Wear Clean Draws
>('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)