Sunday, December 14, 2014

The Fallacy of Post-Modernism

The Fallacy of Post-Modernism. To me, it’s based on familiar ideas expressed in an exotic vocabulary. 
If you look at Lyotard’s original “The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on the Status of Knowledge”, what he says is that in the Modern or Modernistic world you had several “Meta-Narratives” that organized everything, and in the Post-Modern world you no longer have any “Meta-Narratives” at all. 
Well…what exactly is this “Meta-Narrative” spoken of? 

In truth, what Lyotard was expressing is almost identical to historical ideas from Hegel and others that said that every historical era and every culture within that historical era had its own unique fixations and values….and that with the change of history, over time, one set of values declines and another rises in its place. None of this is particularly new at all, and it manifests not just in history and Hegel but also in Marx with the processions of different modes of production. 

In Lyotard’s “Post-Modern Condition”, the question to be asked is why exactly the end of Modernism, as an era, would be replaced by nothing unique at all? One could argue very easily that the “Post-Modern” confusion he saw is a temporary condition based on the ending of one historical era and the beginning of a new one, a sort of lull in the historical stream between two eras, rather than anything permanent. 


If, however, we really don’t have any overarching ideas or values that would rule our historical era, but everything really is now up for permanent grabs with mixing and matching, that would be significant, very significant…..but the post-modernists don’t provide any proof for this, and give evidence of not even understanding the concepts that they advocate for. 

Sunday, November 09, 2014

"Black Coffee Co-op" is no more, and I'm rejoicing

Because it was a blight on the neighborhood and illustrated one of the key problems of anarchists in getting anyone to take them seriously: their link with street culture and punk culture. If you want social change, it's got to be social change that actually involves society itself as a whole, not just one tiny demographic. If large scale change is going to happen, you have to appeal to regular people, folks with relatively normal lives, and not simply declare that people who are part of a youth sub-culture are the vanguard of change.

I say that they were a blight on the neighborhood because it's true: along with all the traveling kids came people addicted to various drugs, or who had untreated mental health issues, that the cafe brought into the area. Again, meth heads aren't going to be the vanguard of the revolution.


Tuesday, September 02, 2014

Political thoughts...the liberal view vs. socialist.

One of the strange things with actually working with people who are disadvantaged, which I did in one form or another for about four years collectively, is that you kind of cut through the bullshit....which in my case proved to me that the liberal, as opposed to socialist, worldview was more correct than I gave it credit for. The socialist worldview, or at least one interpretation of it because there are quite a few versions, would say that those who are disadvantaged or having the hardest times socially are there because of economic reasons in one form or another, and that their presence is a symptom of a greater problem in society. The liberal version, on the other hand, says that social mobility and such works, and that the people who experience the heaviest hardships are those who the liberal set up of society fails because of some incidental cause like addiction or mental illness. It also privileges causes like racial discrimination as being worse problems than economic suffering.

Well, on a personal level, through lots of volunteering, I can say that the worst off in our society are those that conform to the liberal view of things as opposed to the socialist. I expected to find many economic victims of capitalist exploitation, but I found comparatively few, and instead people who had other problems that caused them to be in these positions. The origins of those problems may have had in some cases economic causes, but there was also the factor of personal responsibility in some cases.

I still am a socialist, and believe that economic inequality and the barriers that it puts up to people are a serious problem, but I've also gained a new appreciation for the fact that our economic system works to a degree that I hadn't suspected before. There is mobility, people do lift themselves out of poverty through hard work, not everyone is a victim of economics.

This view has also been strengthened by years spent in community colleges post-bachelors, first to study social work and then to transition into other sorts of worker retraining. I won't say that students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds were absent at Evergreen, but there certainly were more of them at the community colleges I went to, and unlike Evergreen they weren't politically self selected. Instead, it was a broad spectrum of people....and despite the constraints on my fellow students, many were extremely determined to change and improve their lives through school and classes, and to implement upward mobility through it. They didn't see the economic system as fucked up enough so that there was no hope in challenging it, hope that would have to come through some sort of political movement challenging the government, or through creating an alternative society outside of capitalism. Both views are more common than you'd think in the alternative political universe of good old Olympia, Washington.

And politically, they were all over the board. The virtuous proletarians weren't all predisposed for the socialist cause but instead were just as often predisposed to libertarianism as progressive thought.

Call it reality. The socialist critique still applies, but the dire doom and gloom assessment of our society is, in my view, not in connection with the actual facts of the society we live in. 

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Some of the reasons I like Laibach, plus Slavoj Zizek

Well, first off I basically had the same philosophical background as them. I'm not sure how many of their fans really take it seriously, but the philosophical parts of what they do aren't trivial. Before getting into them I had been familiar with Marxist Humanism, and specifically the Yugoslav variant of it, for years. Wolfgang Leonhard's "Three Faces of Marxism", where Yugoslav Marxist-Humanism was one of the faces, was a favorite, as was his "Eurocommunism: a challenge for East and West", which had a substantial amount on both Yugoslav Communism and variants that were related to it. Mihailo Markovic, one of the founders of the "Praxis" school in Yugoslavia, was familiar through his book "From Affluence to Praxis". All of this was part of a greater interest in less authoritarian forms of Communism as it actually existed in the world.

Before that, the writers that informed these guys, such as Herbert Marcuse, Horkheimer and Adorno, and Erich Fromm, were also familiar to me, as were their later opponents. These would be Louis Althusser and his followers, whose "Structural Marxism", whose failings were pretty obvious from the start. Ye, I have been through the valley of Louis Althusser discussing the "Rational Kernal" in "Hegel Standing on His Head" in Marx, contained in the book of essays "For Marx", and have shown no fear.
And I have read many of the Post-Structuralists and Post-Modernists, two groups that Laibach identifies with in various ways.

The hidden dimension, or a hidden dimension, in Laibach and their critique of the Yugoslav state, is the role that New Left Marxist Humanism played as the foil against which their critique was aimed. Because of the relative freedom in Communist Yugoslavia, writers like Herbert Marcuse were well known, and given semi-official status by the state. Reportedly, the Slovenian army required all new recruits to read "One Dimensional Man" by Marcuse, and conscription was compulsory.

Many people, including the ones I just cited, Leonhard and others, saw Yugoslavia as having the potential to fulfill the promise of New Left ideology, with concepts such as self-management, the devolution of authority to Republics, and in general a more decentralized system. Part of what Laibach was about at the beginning was challenging this notion of Yugoslavia as a kind of already realized socialist paradise by pointing out some of the less seemly aspects of it, and rejecting the philosophical premises that were approved of by the State, the Marxist Humanism aspect, and instead confront it with a seemingly authoritarian counter-critique.

One of the lesser known aspects of the famous first interview with Laibach, where they had shaved heads and acted like ambiguous advocates of some form of totalitarian discipline is that the questioner, in asking them what they were about, also asked them about their opinion of certain things based on a kind of Marcusian ideology, which they shot down with more anonymous pseudo-totalitarian advocacy.

Call it similar to objecting to the notion that Hungary was the "Gayest barracks in the camp", that is in the Eastern Bloc.

Anyways, Laibach appears to have appropriated the more hardline ideas from folks like Althusser and his sympathizers, which were much more congenial to Stalinism and Maoism than Marcuse, and ironically turned it against the Yugoslav state, critiquing both the distance between the theory and the realization of classic New Left theory as well as that of Structuralist Marxism.

Althusser and his school were part of the turn of politicos in the late sixties and early '70s towards a more 'serious' form of politics that was perceived to be more rigorous than what came before, which involved a turn to political figures like Stalin and Mao that would previously have been off limits, as well as towards Communist states like Albania, almost universally considered to be hell on earth but in the view of these folks an exemplar to support. Their anti-Humanism was, quite frankly, anti-human.

They were superseded in turn by the Post-Structuralists, whose turn towards the post likely had more to do with the turn of the student movement after '68 that had embraced Structuralist Marxism  rather than serious philosophical objections to people like Claude Levi-Strauss, for example.

Laibach, in adopting a post-modern approach to things like authorship of works and the notion of individual creativity, employed the strategy of Structuralist Marxism against itself, taking it to the point where it became self destroying...while simultaneously making criticisms of the Yugoslav state's flawed adoption of Marxist Humanism. The Yugoslav State still put artists in jail, as well as intellectual dissidents, despite the freedom of speech that existed there.

Post-Structuralist and Post-Modernist, they'd be great exemplars of this but for the fact that the mass of theory that's grown up around these concepts is jargon filled, unclear, a philosophical dead end, and sometimes unable to come to grips with basic logic. The Alan Sokal Affair is a good example of this, where Sokal cut and pasted already existing papers together to produce a new one that tried to prove that gravity was a social construction, submitted it to the journal "Social Text", and had it accepted. Reportedly, there were even academics who praised the text as elucidating fundamental truths even though it was a fraud. Ultimately, I think the reason for the mire is that Post-Structuralism has never been able to shake the authoritarian streak that Structuralist Marxism gave it.

Which is where Slavoj Zizek comes in. I personally don't think much of his philosophy or his philosophizing, but I believe he's popular basically because through sloppily letting in types of philosophy from outside of the Post-Structuralist mire he breathes life into what is essentially a dead, inconsistent, paradigm. These non post-structuralist ideas often seem to come from the milleux of local philosophical ideas that were developed during the last years of the Yugoslav state, some of them coming from a radical re-reading of Heidegger, that are relatively unknown outside of afficionados of the thought of that part of the world.

He defends Laibach, with his usual vim and vigor, but I believe that Zizek is indicative of the system having to cannibalize itself in order to go forward.