The war on terror and the resulting "state of exception" are quickly becoming regular features of everyday life. The question is, have we reached the end of history or are we about to enter another chapter?
In parts I and II, I highlighted some of the theoretical and practical limitations of the State, by far the most dominant political institution to date, defining the overall context for the entire gamut of political relations, foreign and domestic, as well as the limits of what’s politically feasible. On the theoretical side, the concept is flawed on account of its sovereignty component, the necessary condition of statehood, or so it seems, and the source of all its ailments (but more on that later). In practice, those ailments are only exacerbated in the sphere of foreign relations where every state is required to stand its own ground and hold on to its sovereignty as if for dear life.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - roger nowosielski
Just got to be less impulsive, Cindy. I think faster than I can speak (or write). Still in the top form however, though for a while I had doubts. Writing for BC has definitely sharpened my skills, no question about it.
I just hope I shall be able to maintain the level. Gotta move to move back to California. Conditions in KY are hazardous to both physical and mental health.
27 - Cindy
The Liberal Gov't: “Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people.” Hillary Clinton, January 25, Washington
28 - Cindy
Arab anti-government protests spread to Yemen
29 - roger nowosielski
What else can you expect from a political hack? But consider, the response is dictated by the paradigm in place. None other is possible, which is why I argue in the opening paragraph that statehood defines the limits of what's (commonly regarded as) politically feasible. Step outside the box, and a whole new world of possibilities comes to the fore.
30 - roger nowosielski
Yes, it is spreading like a wildfire, reminiscent of the European mass/people movements/uprisings of 1830s and 1860s.
31 - Cindy
I am watching AnonOps in IRC they are repeatedly keeping this Egyptian gov't site down.
32 - roger nowosielski
Yemen Protests.
33 - Alan Kurtz
Considering this article's subject matter, not its treatment, the air of self-congratulation on this thread is unseemly. Let us remember that the true anarchist man of action would find this and other such articles useful only as toilet paper.
34 - Cindy
Mark (and Roger),
I am thinking about what you said, above. I am thinking about that elusive butterfly that is the zeitgeist. It appears that perhaps we won't understand it logically in the same way the zeitgeist is not logical.
What do you think?
(I promise to be trustworthy and kind to you if you talk to me :-)
35 - Cindy
'It' being a change in the status quo to the recognition that we need a more horizontal distribution of power.
36 - Christopher Rose
Alan; I still don't understand why you always link anarchist with man of action. Are the two inherently conjoined in some way?
37 - Alan Kurtz
Protecting Roger Nowosielski is all well and good. I'm glad that he, unlike me, has loyal friends in the BC community who spring to his defense at a moment's notice.
Shielding him from dissent, however, is something altogether different. Had he been here to witness it in real time, I doubt that even Mr. Nowosielski would condone what's lately transpired.
38 - Christopher Rose
Nobody is being protected, Alan, or possibly everybody is.
What I've seen was two people who ought to know better being spiteful, that's all.
Now, I asked you about the conjunction of anarchist and man of action and not found your first stab at an answer at all informative. Perhaps you'd do me the decency of a response, rather than answering a question with a question...
39 - Alan Kurtz
After deleting my "first stab at an answer" because it was not "at all informative," you have a lot of cheek to demand that I now do you a "decency."
40 - Christopher Rose
I wouldn't have deleted it if you hadn't been rude about someone and you didn't respond, you evaded, so let's get into it.
Anyway, if you knew me you'd know I'm known for having a lot of cheek ;-)
41 - roger nowosielski
Alan, today was the first time that Mr. Rose had responded in a positive way to me. I've had much longer history of spats with him than you, so you're way off in your assessment of the situation. Neither do I have many "friends," as you call, among the BC community, nor do I need anyone to step up to the plate in my defense. Anyway, the kind of things you're suggesting are really embarrassing, so unless you're doing this for effect, I'd appreciate if you were to stop. Anyway, I'm not on trial here, the ideas are, and that's the bottom line. The ideas are either sound or they are not, and that's the crux of the matter. It's no reflection on me either way, other than for the fact that's I've done my damnedest to present them in the best way I could.
So if you want to equate anarchism with terrorism? Be my guest. However, all tried to do is to carve out a different meaning for anarchism than the vulgar one, a credible undertaking, I should say. If you don't like my calling it anarchism, fine with me too, but then again, we're only quibbling over words rather than meanings.
Anyway, I'm not going to respond tonight to whatever other questions or queries you might have, but feel free to post whatever comes to mind and I'll make certain to give it my utmost attention tomorrow. You ought to know by now I never shy from a potentially fruitful discussion since it's always a win-win situation. Take care.
42 - M
Nobody is being protected, Alan, or possibly everybody is.
...a "protected democracy" is not a democracy at all...the paradigm of constitutional dictatorship functions instead as a transitional phase that leads inevitably to the establishment of a totalitarian regime. Agamben State of Exception
(Cindy, let me think on that for a bit.)
43 - roger nowosielski
Right, Mark, I was looking for this particular quote but wasn't able to find it.
44 - M
Note how 'protection' becomes one of Agamben's 'fuzzy zones' in Chris' statement.
45 - Alan Kurtz
All of which is exactly what Irvin F. Cohen, in his clumsy bull-in-a-china-shop style, has been arguing strenuously for the past several weeks on various BC threads, to no avail.
Perhaps now that Irv's thesis has acquired a fancy philosophical patina, it will receive a more considered reception.
46 - roger nowosielski
Interesting relationships come to mind. If state's sovereignty is grounded in "eminent domain," likewise with sovereignty/authority of lesser units - private property, in this instance. It's also interesting that cooperative ventures manage to bypass the sovereignty problem - because the notion of property, especially private property, comes short of being well-defined.
47 - roger nowosielski
I am the king of my castle; but once there is no castle, there goes the king.
48 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy and Roger -
Neither of you attempted to answer the question I posed - exactly how would an anarchistic state bring about accomplishments like those I listed?
I'd really like to see your answers on that!
Please take no offense, but IMO both of you are being rather Pollyannish, and it does not matter how logical or how sensible you feel your points may be, you are both apparently choosing to ignore the fact that nothing short of national will guided by a functioning government can bring about anything like the achievements I listed above. Achievements of such scale require money, organization, and national will.
Of course, if either of you can show me examples of like achievements made by anarchistic societies, then you might have a point...but until then, your suppositions about the benefits and apparent eventuality of an anarchistic state are simply that - suppositions.
I look forward to your answers.
P.S. One wonders how well the Allies would have fared in WWII if America, the Soviet Union, and England had all been 'anarchistic states'....
49 - Alan Kurtz
Roger Nowosielski (#47), that's true. But you needn't destroy the castle to get rid of the king. There are plenty of castles still standing throughout Europe where kings once reigned but are now musty museums, tramped through several times a week by picture-snapping American and Japanese tourists.
Extending the metaphor to Blogcritics, neither Mr. Cohen nor I have advocated destroying the castle. We've merely contested the power behind the throne.
50 - roger nowosielski
My use of "castle" was symbolic, Alan.
Glenn, #3 may be of help with your questions.
51 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
I understand where you're trying to go with all this - I really do. I could even point out factors that support your contention, such as the growing number of people who own properties in multiple countries (and so may be less 'patriotic' for one country over all), and there are uncounted thousands of multinational corporations who may have to deal with laws of disparate countries, but truly owe their allegiance to NO country.
Add to these the rampant individualism enabled by the 'liberalizing' of the world...for when in human history has there been in a time when most of the world's nations have been so tolerant of LGBT's, different races, different religions? And on the macrosocialogical and macropolitical scale, where will all this lead?
So, yeah - I feel I do understand what you're trying to say. But on the other hand, I try to bear in mind that while times change and technologies change, people as a whole don't change. The need for organization will be ever greater...and the greater the population of a society, the greater the number of regulations needed to keep that society functioning. That last one, unsavory though it may be, I feel to be an immutable law of human society...and I think I can back it up.
So where are we all going? The individual has more of a voice now than ever before...but the requirement for political and social organization in order to effect lasting change is as strong now as it ever was. Human nature being what it is, the idea of a functioning anarchistic state is no more achievable than the communist paradise or its polar opposite, the libertarian paradise.
52 - roger nowosielski
I wasn't speaking of any anarchistic state, only of anarchistic communities, Glenn. The entire article is an argument against statehood of any kind. Talk to you tomorrow.
53 - Alan Kurtz
Glenn Contrarian (#1, 48, 51), I share your frustration. You're asking for practical answers from a man who is unconcerned with the material world. His domain is one of ideas. If his notions please him, as this thread shows is the case, then real-life follow-through can best be left to others. Presumably his disciples.
I guess there's ample precedent for this. Marx and Engels did not lead the Russian Revolution; Lenin and Trotsky did. Jesus did not establish Christianity; Peter did. Sometimes these two mindsets are embodied in one man, as with Muhammad. But often the prophet and the entrepreneur are separate and distinct, perhaps occupying entirely different timeframes.
54 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Aye, but there's the rub - how exactly can even a local society function without statehood? An anarchistic community can't be 'anarchistic' if it is subject to federal law...and if you get rid of federal law, then you run into all the myriad problems I mentioned earlier.
Again, the greater the population of a society, the greater the number of regulations needed to keep that society functioning. The ONLY way you could have a functioning anarchistic 'community' is to have it cut off from the rest of the world - no TV, no internet, no phone, no roads...and nothing that requires taxes or even 'industry standards'. Perhaps if you move to the Amazon....
Otherwise, your search for a truly anarchistic community is every bit as hopeful as a search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...and that's where you'd also find the communist and libertarian paradises.
55 - Glenn Contrarian
Alan -
Well said - I couldn't have said it any better!
56 - Ruvy
I'll make this brief and simple. The article was almost readable - out of Roger, that is an accomplishment.
As for the general thrust of much thought that seems to have been expressed here, and in other articles, the thrust is going in the same direction. - things are going to hell in a handbasket. That seems to be the zeitgeist. What seems to be under discussion are the details of the handbasket - while everyone is ignoring the hell to come.
Shabbat shalom! I'm outta here!
57 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, I haven't seen any expression of the sentiment that "things are going to hell in a handbasket". Perhaps your preconceptions and prejudices are leading you astray, again...
My take is that we are certainly living in interesting times but any suggestion that we are doomed is simply hysterical nonsense by the superstitious, the gullible, the ill-informed or in some cases the sheerly malevolent.
58 - Alan Kurtz
I don't know what this country's coming to. In my opinion, things are going to hell in a handbasket.
59 - Christopher Rose
I guess it comes down to pessimism and fear versus optimism and hope. I am naturally inclined towards the latter which is both more productive and more fun.
60 - Cindy
Glenn,
exactly how would an anarchistic state bring about accomplishments like those I listed?
1) Perhaps your idea of an anarchistic state is different from mine
Perhaps it is. Let's start by you describing what your idea looks like.
My idea precludes a state. You might have organizations that are created and tasked with the fulfillment of the jobs you described, were they desirable to people.
2) I did answer your question about education (did you notice that?). And now I have answered your other question. Pretty simply.
I am not sure why your vision is impeding the action of the human race. We'll likely have a better idea why when you given your description of your 'anarchistic state'
61 - roger nowosielski
Alan,
How can you expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to be able to come up with any significant detail at this stage? I never claimed to be a prophet or seer of the future. All one can possibly do is to analyze the geopolitical situation as best they can and carry the analysis to a logical if not probable conclusion(s). Have I promised more than I delivered>
It would seem one of the sub-themes of the article is that solutions develop on the ground, on a piecemeal basis, and that they crystallize over time as well. So forgive me, but the kinds of things you're looking for are beyond my ken.
62 - roger nowosielski
Interesting, though, how Glenn - I suppose when intellectually pressed - falls back on two seemingly irrefutable but all-so-worn- out answers:
(1) In a complex world, we need more, not less, regulations (a liberal response)
(2) Human nature is what it is and it's not going change (a conservative response)
63 - roger nowosielski
Cindy, thanks for introducing zeitgeist into the mix. My hunch is, it's precisely because any radical shift in human consciousness and the resulting actions aren't always accountable by recourse to neatly-packaged, logical steps, that terms such as "zeitgeist" acquire their meaning and weight - in order to explain the unexplainable, as it were.
64 - Cindy
Protesters tell Yemeni President to quit
65 - Cindy
Protesters tell Yemeni President to quit
"Pink revolution ... Yemeni protesters say they have adopted the colour pink to show they do not want violence." Photo
(very cool)
66 - Jordan Richardson
Nice job on this, Roger. Finally got around to giving it the reading it deserves.
Totally agree with the notion of true progression and dearly hope that society's organic evolution breaks through some of the obvious walls. As you touch on, the details as to what some sort of "future world" could look like are beyond the realm of possibility and explanation.
I think there are encouraging signs in the workers' movements, in the Yemeni protests (thanks for the updates, Cindy), in the Egyptian protests against Mubarak, in Latin American uprisings, and so on. Perhaps some of the specifics lie in these regions.
67 - roger nowosielski
Another interesting aside. Regimes the world over, when challenged, resort to uniform if not identical means of handling dissent: tear gas, crow control, etcetera. One would think that in a world teeming with cultural and ethnic diversity and difference, some of it would rub off on the character and shape of the particular regimes, but no - the institution of the State (and its respective government) appears independent of cultural/ethnic influences and exhibits the same uniform pattern.
This is good news, for we know that we're dealing with one and the same thing in essence - the uniformly political shape of the modern world and thus far the predominant influence.
68 - Cindy
Revolution is in the air but US sticks to same old script
Washington appears addicted to propping up tyrants, writes Paul McGeough.
"Clinton uttered the ''stability'' line early in the week...Consider how it might be interpreted by ordinary Egyptians - the human rights of 80 million people have been trampled for 30 years but what the US Secretary of State is most concerned about is the stability of the state."
69 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Jordan.
BTW, I appreciated your comments the other day re: Irv's poetry. Shows you to be a fair person.
70 - Cindy
These tyrants are US allies. Now the state must look like it supports freedom of the people whilst trying to maintain diplomatic relationships with dictators.
71 - Jordan Richardson
Also well worth keeping an eye on is the Tunisian revolt. This article is an interview with Kevin Ovenden and describes the "the first removal of an Arab autocrat by a popular mobilization or revolution, as opposed to a palace coup or an army coup, in more than half a century."
Incredible stuff. The world is changing.
72 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
My idea precludes a state. You might have organizations that are created and tasked with the fulfillment of the jobs you described, were they desirable to people.
And where does the money come from to make these happen, Cindy? And who manages that money? Do you really suppose that people would simply voluntarily give money towards these 'goals' like giving offerings at a church?
And what about the funding needed for a social safety net? Given what we've seen from the Right, do you REALLY suppose they would give enough money voluntarily to pay for the health care for other people, and pensions for the elderly and disabled?
2) I did answer your question about education (did you notice that?). And now I have answered your other question. Pretty simply.
Where?
I am not sure why your vision is impeding the action of the human race. We'll likely have a better idea why when you given your description of your 'anarchistic state'
Huh? I thought you and Roger were the ones declaring the coming 'anarchistic state' - or 'anarchistic communities' in his words. I'm simply saying that, given human nature, such is every bit as impossible as the communist and libertarian paradises.
And until either of you show me how your ideas would work in the PRACTICAL sense - how money would be collected and managed and used for purposes that many would oppose e.g. a social safety net - then your ideas are nothing more than wishful thinking.
73 - roger nowosielski
BTE, Hillary is slowly changing her tune. She started to punctuate her communiques with occasional references to abuses and oppression by the governments in the region.
74 - Cindy
Thousands protest in Jordan
Protesters gather across the country, demanding the prime minister step down.
75 - Jordan Richardson
An interview with Laila Lalami on the "thirst for freedom" in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.