Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
rms
Active Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viKEpo93Txs&list=UU2Xd902w9u5_2oa7SHFSvZw
America as a fascist state, not sure I agree with any of this though--you guys bored, what do you think, do you care?!
America as a fascist state, not sure I agree with any of this though--you guys bored, what do you think, do you care?!
Dak
mentat
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dak
mentat
Haha why would I have my own youtube channel? I prefer writing, and don't even have time to keep up with my blog.
I liked Overwatch but oh well. I think NoumeGnon is quite clever though.
I liked Overwatch but oh well. I think NoumeGnon is quite clever though.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Just sayin'. I think you have the perfect personality for a YouTube channel. You'll piss off enough people and you'll get some sort of mixed following. Plus you can go after guys like Stefan molyneuahgoxzxzxz
Einherjar86
Active Member
It's definitely incorrect to call what we have a democracy (or to even imagine that democracy can be a closed system), but that doesn't mean we live in a fascist country.
Democracy isn't a system; it's a process. As long as politicians keep proposing democratic systems of government, and believing in their infallibility, we will continue to find flaws and critical ruptures in those systems. This is because democracy is, by definition, incomplete and fallible. Democratic processes must always accompany political systems, but there can be no democratic system of government.
The best work on this as of late is Martin Hägglund's book Radical Atheism, and specifically the chapter titled "Autoimmunity of Democracy: Derrida and Laclau."
Hägglund pursues a deconstructionist view of democracy and does a tremendous job of explaining the logic of imperfection and imperfectibility in democratic processes:
The final sentence is particularly illuminating and helpful in formulating a deconstructionist view of democracy.
Whose name is only slightly worse than NoumeGnon.
rms
Active Member
I guess all I can say is thanks for that perspective from Hägglund, democracy as a relative idea throughout time, if I am getting that right?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Or not even as the idea per se, as I read him, but as the process of political engagement and consideration that permits varying ideas to operate according to certain historical or cultural contexts. Democracy shouldn't be a vision, but a process that mediates the competition of alternative visions. Democracy in itself thus can never be justified because, by (Derrida's) definition, if it could then that would mean it wasn't democracy. It would privilege a single utopian vision as opposed to mediate an infinite number of potential visions.
Dak
mentat
The process of democracy does privilege a single vision of mediation, and as is the nature of visions, somewhat utopian in nature.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, according to how I'm using it, what you've just described isn't a vision. If by vision you just mean a vague idea in someone's head, then sure; but I'm talking about vision as political instantiation, as hierarchy, as institution and apparatus.
There's no doubt that we need these categories in order to act in the first place, but democracy itself (the way Derrida defines it) isn't one of these visions.
There's no doubt that we need these categories in order to act in the first place, but democracy itself (the way Derrida defines it) isn't one of these visions.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Eh, there really isn't any other "form" because democracy isn't a form. You're being too rigid about this. Democracy simply happens. There's no such thing as a democratic government, in this sense, because any government must be a form, or vision, or institution. Democracy is what exists around this, in the interstices, in the way people communicate, debate, and criticize institutional form, and how they interject processes of resistance into institutions of hierarchy.
It's very abstract, and there isn't really any other form that mediation can take.
It's very abstract, and there isn't really any other form that mediation can take.
Dak
mentat
I'm being rigid about it because it is an identifiable form of political organization with it's own inherent rigidity. It doesn't "simply happen". If you and I meet and vote on where to eat, that isn't even remotely "Democracy" - because we both have exit as an option, making it a different form of mediation. Democracy depends on no exit.
@Jimmy: The unfortunate thing about Molyneux is that when he sticks purely to economics he is pretty good at laying things out simply. The problem lays in all his "pet issues" as it were outside of the economic side of things. I also can't imagine too many people outside of the "choir" happening to listen to him. He approaches the likelihood of broad acceptance with far too much optimism, but I guess you need that, as per Alinsky.
@Jimmy: The unfortunate thing about Molyneux is that when he sticks purely to economics he is pretty good at laying things out simply. The problem lays in all his "pet issues" as it were outside of the economic side of things. I also can't imagine too many people outside of the "choir" happening to listen to him. He approaches the likelihood of broad acceptance with far too much optimism, but I guess you need that, as per Alinsky.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't think it's worth arguing over, but the final point simply isn't true. Democracy means constant critique, but it doesn't absorb all individuals into it. The hegemonizing, subjectivizing power derives from non-democratic structures.
Again, it has to do with Derrida's redefinition of democracy, based on a deconstructionist critique.
EDIT: I would suggest that what "simply happens" isn't democracy, correct; but rather dominating structures of power and hierarchy. This connects, as I see it, merely to the necessity for practical action: action necessitates conceptualization, both cognitively and institutionally. Democracy simultaneously critiques, and provides the opportunity for, hegemonic structures. Democracy itself can't be done away with because democracy isn't a political vision (as Derrida defines it); democracy is, rather, the necessary origin and effect of politics par excellence.
Dak
mentat
That is an absolutely useless characterization, or definition. It explains nothing, allows for no predictions, criticisms, etc. Hence my objection.
Einherjar86
Active Member
The more interesting thing happening in this conversation is that you have already decided that you don't like democracy; thus, you're resistant to a redefinition of it in which its more heavily political and hierarchical manifestations seem to dissipate because you feel this is nothing more than an attempt to salvage, deceptively, an unattractive and detrimental system.
I also for a long time thought democracy was something of a ruse, but I actually find Derrida's redefinition incredibly useful because, when seriously considered, it exposes the arbitrary act of attempting to justify political decisions in the name of democracy. The whole entire point is that democracy, by its very nature, can never be justified. Derrida's explanation isn't trying to protect democracy from outside criticism. Rather, Derrida is saying that democracy is the source of criticism and thus simultaneously precludes any possibility of justifying democracy in-itself, and for-itself.
It is very similar, in fact, to what I wrote recently about capitalism; that is, that if we are serious about capitalism and true supporters of it, then we should acknowledge the fact that capitalism does not need any justification. The phenomena of accumulation and destruction are simply part and parcel with a capitalist system, which is basically just how human beings interact. That said, we shouldn't attempt to rationalize away poverty and economic power relations in the name of free markets, because this is again to justify capitalism in-itself, and for-itself, which is precisely what we cannot do.
Nothing is justified in-itself or for-itself. Everything is subject to critique. This is what the logic of democracy reveals.
I also for a long time thought democracy was something of a ruse, but I actually find Derrida's redefinition incredibly useful because, when seriously considered, it exposes the arbitrary act of attempting to justify political decisions in the name of democracy. The whole entire point is that democracy, by its very nature, can never be justified. Derrida's explanation isn't trying to protect democracy from outside criticism. Rather, Derrida is saying that democracy is the source of criticism and thus simultaneously precludes any possibility of justifying democracy in-itself, and for-itself.
It is very similar, in fact, to what I wrote recently about capitalism; that is, that if we are serious about capitalism and true supporters of it, then we should acknowledge the fact that capitalism does not need any justification. The phenomena of accumulation and destruction are simply part and parcel with a capitalist system, which is basically just how human beings interact. That said, we shouldn't attempt to rationalize away poverty and economic power relations in the name of free markets, because this is again to justify capitalism in-itself, and for-itself, which is precisely what we cannot do.
Nothing is justified in-itself or for-itself. Everything is subject to critique. This is what the logic of democracy reveals.
Dak
mentat
I don't see how any of this follows. First, even were I to support democracy, Derrida's perspective would be no more desirable. Secondly, democracy is not "salvaged" by this perspective in anything other than name only. It becomes unrecognizable and untreatable. It just "is" whatever it is that we do when we criticize. Well ok then. That's obviously not what I am talking about, nor wish to waste time on, so give me another label that is satisfactory.
Pretty much a parallel to the Liar's Paradox.
If you want to call critique and mediation "democracy", which just "is" - and so then critique just "is" and mediation just "is", then why not the same for poverty and economic power relations as parcel with capitalism? Everything just is. Shut the door, turn out the lights, this place is closed. This is what I mean by uselessness.
A quote I heard recently was the charge along the lines that "some like kicking up the dust and then complaining that they can't see", and this sort of thing is what came to mind. Repurposing commonly used words for something rather alien and then interjecting into conversations which have no interest in that alien thing isn't helping anyone. Maybe Derrida is like 4chan - he did it for the lulz.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You give me the lulz.
Everything is subject to critique. Even that comment is subject to critique. It is a paradox. Even that comment is subject to critique.
And don't complain about something being un-treatable just because you can't figure out how to treat it.
Everything is subject to critique. Even that comment is subject to critique. It is a paradox. Even that comment is subject to critique.
And don't complain about something being un-treatable just because you can't figure out how to treat it.
Dak
mentat
That appears to be a copout and misses the point. What rms originally posted, and what Wolf was talking about, etc., is a completely different topic than whatever Derrida wants to discuss.
That Derrida has his own interests, definitions, and so on is fine. But to interject them is to change the subject, and really requires such a preface to the introduction. "Hey guys, I know you were talking about the form government in America, but I would like to talk about things in the interstices (which I happen to refer to by the same name as what you guys were talking about)."
Derrida's "democracy", in speaking about governmental forms or concepts, is completely un-treatable, because it doesn't refer to governmental forms or concepts. It is treatable after some fashion (at least in terms of rejection ala Kant/Hume), but that would require a change in subject (and for some, discern! lulz).
In specific response to rms, we could define democracy (and/or fascism) in some way that speaks to forms of government, and then maybe hammer out why the US does/doesn't have democracy, could/couldn't have democracy, and/or should/shouldn't have democracy. And then maybe if it doesn't/couldn't/shouldn't, what the alternatives are, which is maybe where that thing or those things lying in the interstices start emerging, particularly if we can give them some name of their own.
