“No countries, no possessions, only a brotherhood of man” What's so hard to understand? John Lennon was a prophet.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
126 - roger nowosielski
@123,
OK, Shenon, let's start with the Logical/conceptual- vs. historical analysis distinction.
My presentation in the four-part series on anarchism was in essence a conceptual analysis/deconstruction of the concept of modern statehood, taking rightly or wrongly Thomas Hobbes as the progenitor of the concept. Thomas Hobbes presents his argument on behalf of the institution in terms of his metaphysical/conceptual system - which includes nominalist philosophical position in vogue at the time, and invents in the process a theory of the subject. However, there are also historical forces/motives at work which render Thomas Hobbes's ideas ripe for their time - the general decline of the authority of the Church, the Cromwellian era which followed the decapitation of the English king, etcetera. The need to anchor absolute sovereignty (and authority) in the modern institution of the State was made viable and ripe for historical reasons. Yet Hobbes was a philosopher, not a polemicist, and he doesn't justify his concept in terms of those reasons but in terms of his own metaphysical/philosophic system which he constructs for the purpose.
For an example of the kind of interplay between the historical and the conceptual, see the end of part III, in particular my reference to R. G. Collingwood.
127 - roger nowosielski
Let me take a stab at paragraph 2, if I understand it correctly.
(a) I don't advocate the abolishing of governments by violent means (though I recognize the actions of people who do as responses to the culture of terrorism exercised by the state); my argument is that states will fall of their own accord. Their influence, as far as I can see, is already on the wane (as exemplified, for instance by the developments in Libya, as well as the very fact that the action taken against that rogue state is undertaken by a UN resolution, the court of the international community, that is. So think of anarchism on my terms of presentation. Let's forget old associations.
(b) the state's sovereignty is granted it (John Locke's idea) by the consenting subjects, and can be withdrawn at will. You're arguing for it while presupposing ideal conditions. Well, my argument is that those conditions no longer obtain (if they ever did), because in the real world, given inter-state competition for prestige, resources, etc., the states have because entities all their own, forced to be moved more by their own interests (which includes survival) than by the interests of their subjects and justice.
128 - roger nowosielski
The penultimate paragraph.
(a)I don't believe that my concept of anarchism entails that notion of freedom, let alone any kind of freedom conceived as an absolute (right?) In fact, it has always been sound policy, IMO, and sound thinking to have a right kind of "rights-responsibilities" mix, the one mitigating the other. So yes, I agree with your "evolutionary" mode of thinking, whereby freedom and rights make sense only within the larger framework whereby we as individuals acknowledge the nexus of interdependence. In fact, apart from that nexus, acknowledged to boot, I wouldn't understand what freedom is or means. (Perhaps we both should devote some time to this subject.)
(b) So therefore the question becomes: How it can be anarchism if it doesn't guarantee the individual "absolute freedom"?
(c) Your notion of harmonious communities and of propagating the well-being of the species is an attractive one. (Perhaps you're closer to my idea of what anarchism is/ought to be than you think.) It's known otherwise as an "enclave" theory of morality. I would add one necessary proviso. You'd still need, however, a(n)(absolute?) moral justification as to why the species ought to be preserved.
129 - roger nowosielski
Lastly, concerning the aesthetic impulse, Shenon - why do you wish to delimit it to works of art only? what about thinking?
Just like an idea can be thought of as a starting point of an eventually perfect execution of a composition, why do you deny it such powers when it comes to thought?
130 - roger nowosielski
A belated response to your #122, Anarcissie.
Why not look at Connolly's notion of "mechanism" as a supplement to your admittedly simpler theory of some people buying other people off? It's definitely Foucauldian in important respects, hinting at the invisible hand, as it wore, exercising its insidious influence in the realm of human affairs. Granted, Connolly doesn't develop it to the same extent Foucault had done in such instances as sexuality, the penal system and psychiatric/medical professions and means of societal control, but still, I find Connolly idea intellectually satisfying and intuitively sound. In fact, I regard it as a form of "invisible hand" explanations, as per Nozick, for instance. (BTW, do you find Foucault's own accounts empirically satisfying?
Also, have you listened to Connolly's lecture on Hegel and "global resonance machines," as per link in #110?
131 - roger nowosielski
Shenonymous, Anarcissie, Cindy & "troll":
I'll be back at this site by Friday at the latest. Meanwhile, feel free to post any responses or comments.
132 - troll
Sorry troll (at #119), I am not able to follow what you mean here. What aesthetically irrational experiences did you have that yielded proof and proof of what?
As an absolutist rationalist, I find the aesthetically irrational useful only in the pursuit and creation of art.
the usefulness of 'irrational emotional restlessness' becomes clear (for example) in the study of mathematics and formal systems theory...when battling demons in higher order number classes (view these as levels in the math logic video game) one learns to pay attention to the hairs on the back of his neck
Rx: a week of reading Father Brown stories
133 - Anarcissie
Occam's Razor, I suppose. I'm not denying resonance, I just don't see it as an important causative principle. If plutocrats can buy the allegiance of workers, students, housewives, liberals, conservatives, union leaders, businessmen, hobos, hipsters, why not that of Evangelicals?
The only audio or video material I have been able to metabolize which was not art for art's sake was a collection of Feynman's 'lost lectures'.
troll's remark reminds me of the famed 'Weirdness Quotient'. When you get out on the Edge, be it in science, mathematics, art, war, romance, dirt farming, or motorcycle racing, things stop making sense. If they make sense, you're not out on the Edge any more.
134 - Alan Kurtz
Extensive coverage here of Saturday's rioting in London, with colorful pictures of hooded anarchists smashing things. What's interesting is how the anarchists leveraged an otherwise peaceful protest by the Trades Union Congress, a 6.5 million-member federation representing the majority of UK trade unions, and in so doing attracted far more media coverage than any standalone anarchist smash-fest could've hoped for.
It's quite a contrast with recent U.S. union-organized protests, such as in Wisconsin involving state workers. Whatever anarchist presence might've lurked in those demonstrations, it failed utterly to divert attention to itself. How do you explain that? Perhaps America has only armchair anarchists, a bloviating bourgeoisie who'd sooner book a fortnight at the Ritz Hotel than to wield a battering ram to shatter plate glass windows on the hotel's storefront shops.
135 - Anarcissie
They had some provocateurs in Wisconsin -- more like Republicans than actual anarchists -- but the demonstrators were fairly well organized and on the lookout for that sort of thing.
136 - Alan Kurtz
… more like Republicans than actual anarchists …
My point exactly.
137 - Anarcissie
So your point, as it stands, is irrelevant to a discussion of anarchism or anarchists. Want to tie it in somehow? I want to present my anecdotes, but you're not offering much of a platform.
138 - Alan Kurtz
My point is that America's self-professed "anarchists," presumably such as yourself, talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Instead they act more like Republicans than actual anarchists.
If that's irrelevant to a discussion of anarchism or anarchists, please forgive my intrusion into this lofty realm. But I get the impression none of you "anarchists" need a platform from me in order to present your anecdotes.
139 - troll
...stumbled across this reading of Feyerabend's take on the Weirdness
140 - roger nowosielski
As usual, Alan's talking from both sides of his mouth. His very complaint against what he views as this site's unduly strict censorship, along with the recommended solution, is precisely along anarchistic lines of self-regulation/self-rule.
So once again, we're being treated to another random instance of Mr. Kurtz's willful misrepresentations - this time conflating principles with a method.
141 - roger nowosielski
@133
I'm less than happy, Anarcissie, with your application of Occam's Razor to the case at hand. Two reasons.
First, the uncanny staying power of capitalism (especially in the overdeveloped West where the majority have tasted the bitter fruits of the system); yet they keep on voting against their interests. So unless you're going to fall back on the idea that we're dealing here with a kind of mass hypnosis, the simple explanation simply won't do.
A related point. The theory that everyone can be bought off (including the evengelicals) rings untrue. It presupposes that by and large, we're dealing with dishonorable persons. And even if you were right (to a point) about the higher echelons, what about the rank and file? Are they all dupes?
For which reasons, it strikes me that an underlying mechanism may well be at work to account for this kind of behavior on the part of those who ought to behave and act contrary to the ways in which they do. And the idea of resentment, which fuels the actual behavior, appears to resolve the seeming paradox.
142 - Anarcissie
I do have a mass-hypnosis theory, which I call 'the shadow of slavery' -- the cultural after-effects of the seven thousand years or so, from the beginning of history until the initial victories of liberalism-capitalism, in which most humans were serfs or slaves. However, I could be wrong -- the need for domination (active and passive) could be inscribed in our genes. In that case we'll just kill ourselves off in the not-too-distant future, and there is not much point in worrying about the political details. So that could be your underlying mechanism.
As for buy-offs, these are usually masked in such a way as to preserve the honor of the purchased. Or some of it.
Alan Kurtz seems to be just making stuff up; I was hoping for some more fantasies, but no luck.
143 - roger nowosielski
I tend to be skeptical of anything smacking of genetic determinism, Anarcissie, but that's just me. No question, we're dealing with what may be called a "complex system" (see brief discussion on today's Weekend Edition on NPR, so perhaps Connolly's is but a valiant stab at trying to attain a holistic understanding of what is by definition irreducible to simples.
Anyway, this may well be a moot point, an effort on Connolly's part to justify his conviction that a "no state" solution is beyond the realm of possibility. Hence the dire need to invent the notion of a "global resonance machine" which could then be exploited for weak spots as part of guerrilla warfare striking at the fringes. Jean-François Lyotard had a similar idea when (after Walter Benjamin) he spoke of paralogies (The Postmodern Condition).
144 - roger nowosielski
Shenon, you might consider posting on this site until your email situation gets cleared up. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your input.
145 - Anarcissie
The idea of 'resonances' is interesting, but I don't see it as a necessary mechanism of social control. Having a lot of money would be more effective. That is, 'Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker.'
We can probably count on our established order to destroy itself -- to continue destroying itself. Apparently power really does corrupt. The question is what is to come after. Voltaire, or someone like that, said history was the sound of boots going up the staircase and slippers coming down, but when the boots get heavy enough, the staircase itself will break.
146 - roger nowosielski
An update on Libya:
A five-minute history of British involvement in Libya, presented by Jason Pack of St. Anthony's College, Oxford.
Click on World Update, 31/11/2011 show. The relevant segment starts at 44:30 minutes into the show, and will be available for your listening pleasure for the next seven days.
Here is one of Mr. Pack's article on Libya in the Christian Science Monitor, "Upheaval in Qaddafi's Libya isn't just another Arab uprising", although somewhat dated (Feb 23, 2011). If and when I come across more recent stuff, I'll provide the link.
I thought it more appropriate to post these links on this site rather than on Libya-dedicated RJ's site. After all, I'm not concerned that much with the prospects of Mr. O's impeachment (small potatoes, IMHO), but with liberation movements the world over and overthrowing of tyrannical (as if there were any other) states.
147 - roger nowosielski
On related news, Syrian opposition form National Transitional Council, in anticipation of the falling of the Bashar al-Assad regime.
148 - roger nowosielski
"Arab Views of US Motives," an extract from an article by Dr Burhan Ghalioun of Sorbonne, the elected head of National Transitional Council (see #147).