[Nettime-bold] RE: <nettime> the myth of democracy + christianity

[Ian andrews <i.andrews@metroscreen.com.au>]

>There is no equating counter globalisation protesters (which is, to
>say the least, a very hetrogeneous mix of bodies, groups, peoples,
>organisations, movements, etc) with those that would institute some
>form of 'fascistic' rule - right wing christians, neo-liberalists,
>fascists, etc. The two 'groupings' aims run completely counter to one
>another.

Nik, you have totally missed my point. At no time have I ever suggested
such a thing. You are grossly oversimplifiying my argument and
misrepresenting me in the process. What I am saying is that there appears
to me to be a limitation within the thinking of the various groups (not
all) that constitute the counter-globalisation movements. This limitation
involves an inability of the groups to theorise themselves in relation to
the state (or authority in general),in a way other than in terms of a
simple opposition. This tendency has been around for quite a while in
leftist politics (you are right to say that anarchism is a particulaly
vague term, which is why I purposely avoided it). The fact that this same
simple opposition to authority, and the state, is shared by certain
born-again Christian groups was my point. Now, examine the reasons why the
two groupings' aims run counter to one another. Putting it very simply, one
group supports the rights of the powerless, oppressed minorities and their
difference, while the other vilifys them.  The group that supports the
rights of others does so by managing to get legislation passed which aims
at protecting the rights of the others. I can't think of an example where
the same result has been acheived in any other way. So the question is, how
can this protection of others be instituted without the resort to some form
of authority? Surely you can see from this rather simple example that the
problem is not an easy one. I'm not saying that it is not possible but it
is a problem that will involve some thought. The examination of some
democratic processes, in the hope that we might find some useful tools that
may help in thinking this problem through, is in my opinion a good place to
start. Of course the ideal democracy is a myth. No one here, neither Kermit
or Marcus or myself has said anything to the contrary. Of course there has
never been a "real" democracy. None of us have ever suggested that there
has been, or that we should return to some mythological past. But the
slogan "democracy is a myth," should not be used as a device to limit any
further thought in its direction.

The other question you must look at is how to manage direct participation.
You must first look at what seperates it from mob rule, otherwise you may
be placing your bets on a kind of fluffy (and maybe even dangerous)
idealism.

A good place to start might be Spinoza's materialism (in particular the
_Tractatus Theologico-Politicus_). Spinoza is a favourite of Negri and, of
course, Deleuze, who sees him as part of a counter tradition of dissenters
and (anti-Aristotlian)freaks, including Machiavelli, Nietzche, Marx and
Freud, as opposed to the bougeois tradition of Hobbes, Kant, Hegel, etc.
These two philosophers see in Spinoza the possibility of a radical
materialism that dispenses with Hegelian teleology. Spinoza puts forward
the suggestion that we are all part of a materialist collectivity. In doing
this he rejects the Cartesian mind (soul) and body split. This eventuates
in a theory of subjectivity radically different from bourgeois
individualism (the basic theory of neo-liberalism). It is from here that
Deleuze and Guattari take their concept of "machinic assemblages." It is
interesting to note that the last thing that Spinoza wrote about, and left
unfinished, was democracy.

But I still have problems with both Negri and D&G. With D&G (who I am more
familiar with) it is not their direction, but rather their methodology that
I find problematic. For instance, _Anti-Oedipus_ is a very different book
than _1000 Plateaux_. The first is a playful, irreverant Dionysian punk
rant against the monoliths of Hegel, Marx and a certain Freud. This text
resists an authoritative reading, and it a mistake made by many to do what
can't be done - ie. to hold it up as an authoritative text. _1000
Plateaux_, on the other hand, is much more authoritative (though it
pretends not to be).  It constantly builds concepts that, although they
attempt to be fluid and non-hierarchic (rhizomatic), can't help
solidifying.  This is where I find Derridean deconstruction useful. It
finds a way to make use of a concept while, at the same time, not allowing
that concept to settle into a hierarchy of knowledge. It does this by
carefully and rigorously describing what it does, at the time of doing it -
its basic premise is that there is no transcendental idea, outside of
language - "there is nothing outside the text." But deconstruction always
ends in aporias.  It casts everything into doubt. We need to think the next
step, which necessarily includes deconstruction and not its abandonment, as
well as continuing the trajectory of Spinoza, Nietzshe, Marx and Freud. A
certain spirit of the Enlightenment, and a reconfiguration of certain
democratic ideas might be useful here. That, and NOT an attack on activism,
has been the gist of my last three posts.

Ian Andrews
Metro Screen
Sydney


Email: i.andrews@metroscreen.com.au
http://www.metroscreen.com.au
1981 - 2001 Metro Screen is a celebrating 20 years of access and
innovation in independent screen production.

Metro Screen
Sydney Film Centre
Paddington Town Hall
P.O. Box 299
Paddington NSW 2021
Ph : 612 9361 5318
Fax: 612 9361 5320



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold