Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Jimmy... Dead.]

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]

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?!

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:

We can thus begin to articulate the link between deconstruction and what Derrida calls democracy to come. Democracy to come does not designate a utopian hope for a democracy that will come one day and bring about a just society. It is not an ideal, and it cannot serve to justify any political commitment. If the commitment to democracy was justified by deconstruction, we would no longer have to make any decision or take responsibility for this commitment, since we would know that it was justified. Rather, all aspects of democracy require political negotiations that cannot be grounded in deconstruction or anything else. There is no given concept, constitution, or regime of democracy, which means that a commitment to "democracy" cannot be justified in itself. To look for such justification in Derrida's work is to misunderstand the level on which his analyses operate. Derrida does not offer solutions to political problems or normative guidelines for how to approach them. On the contrary, he argues that solutions and norms cannot be justified once and for all, since they are instituted in relation to the undecidable coming of time that precedes and exceeds them. Far from absolving us from politics, it is the undecidable coming of time that makes politics necessary in the first place, since it precipitates the negotiation of unpredictable events. The undecidable coming of time makes it possible to justify decisions but at the same time makes it impossible for any justification to be final or sheltered from critique.

The final sentence is particularly illuminating and helpful in formulating a deconstructionist view of democracy.

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

Whose name is only slightly worse than NoumeGnon.

 

[rms]

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]

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]

The process of democracy does privilege a single vision of mediation, and as is the nature of visions, somewhat utopian in nature.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[Dak]

Democracy excludes other forms of mediation. Adherents have a "single vision" of mediation.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

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]

That is an absolutely useless characterization, or definition. It explains nothing, allows for no predictions, criticisms, etc. Hence my objection.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[Dak]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Dak]

And don't complain about something being un-treatable just because you can't figure out how to treat it.

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.

 

[Einherjar86]

rms seemed to find it informative, so maybe you should rethink that. I didn't change the subject, I offered another perspective. You should try changing yours sometimes.

 

[Dak]

But it didn't actually answer his question. Or rather, it did, but not in a positive way. That is, it didn't inform him as to what America is/has, or if it is/has what it purports to (regardless of label). All it said was "Derrida says we both do and do not have a democracy" (depending on what definition/label you want to use for either). So democracy doesn't have to mean what people usually use democracy to mean. Ok. Now let's get back to the the original question. I mean, if rms is no longer interested in his original question then fine. But it was never answered, regardless of the informative nature about labels being flexible.

I have changed my perspective multiple times, and I'm all about entertaining new definitions or perspectives, as long as they are useful for or relative to the purpose that is under discussion. Otherwise, like I said, a change in the subject should be explicitly indicated, particularly when labels are being reappropriated.For instance:

Democracy isn't a system; it's a process.

My response to Derrida would be: Fine. Then provide a label for the system you have taken the label from, which we were discussing.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't want this to come off as crude, but you're missing the fucking point, jesus-fucking-christ.

Derrida isn't simply redefining democracy; he's not taking the term and arbitrarily assigning a new meaning to it. He's saying that if we pursue the logic of democracy far enough, we encounter a paradox that precludes the possibility of talking about democracy as we have previously talked about it. He's taking democracy at its word, and he's critiquing that word. He's taking to task the liberal tendency to justify its actions and policies in the name of democratic action. He's actually criticizing the same establishment that you can't stand! You're so caught up on this idea that he's somehow defending democracy that you're not getting the point of his argument: democracy involves a kind of false consciousness, or cognitive dissonance, by which we reify democracy as an ideal that justifies political action. Derrida is saying that if we actually look hard at what democracy entails, we find that it undermines our ability to promote political policies and justify progressive action in the name of democracy.

If we want to pursue democracy, then we must accept that it precludes the justification of any political practice or program in its own name.

 

[rms]

Well this exploded!

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.

Ein sort of answered this already but I think there were two ways to answer the question I proposed. One to argue against our level of 'democracy' in America and one to (re)define what democracy is. I kinda just posted that link to get some discussion about a news show that is better than most, imo, and seems to have this kind of crap on it. Not sure if anyone else subscribes to the Breakingtheset youtube feed, but I do and it usually has some interesting things like Vice.

rms seemed to find it informative, so maybe you should rethink that. I didn't change the subject, I offered another perspective. You should try changing yours sometimes.

Yeah, that's why I wasn't upset without a direct response to the video. I mean you guys are way over my head most of the time and I was just bored and interested in hearing some other opinions about it.

I mean, if rms is no longer interested in his original question then fine. But it was never answered, regardless of the informative nature about labels being flexible.

Usually interested in debates, especially if I can kinda look like I know what i'm talking about.

 

[Dak]

I don't want this to come off as crude, but you're missing the fucking point, jesus-fucking-christ.

Derrida isn't simply redefining democracy; he's not taking the term and arbitrarily assigning a new meaning to it. He's saying that if we pursue the logic of democracy far enough, we encounter a paradox that precludes the possibility of talking about democracy as we have previously talked about it. He's taking democracy at its word, and he's critiquing that word. He's taking to task the liberal tendency to justify its actions and policies in the name of democratic action. He's actually criticizing the same establishment that you can't stand! You're so caught up on this idea that he's somehow defending democracy that you're not getting the point of his argument: democracy involves a kind of false consciousness, or cognitive dissonance, by which we reify democracy as an ideal that justifies political action. Derrida is saying that if we actually look hard at what democracy entails, we find that it undermines our ability to promote political policies and justify progressive action in the name of democracy.

If we want to pursue democracy, then we must accept that it precludes the justification of any political practice or program in its own name.

Well, to begin with, I'm not caught up in some idea of his defending what it is I loathe, because he doesn't appear to be speaking of that thing. When Hoppe speaks of it, it is recognizable, but not when Derrida speaks of it. If (and I do mean if), the tortured explication of Derrida's meaning is in fact the same thing, then Derrida should have worked on that. However, I don't think so, because from what I can google on deconstructionism in general, and Derrida in particular, it/he shows no particular attachment to meaning. So I have no reason to accept that when Derrida uses any word, he means what I mean, because he doesn't accept that I mean anything(or even that he means anything?) - at least - he doesn't think that/mean that we mean what we mean when we attempt to mean meanings. So how can anyone claim to mean what Derrida means in his meanings? Derrida's meanings preclude meaning, that is, what is the meaning of his meaning, or more precisely, what does his meaning mean? Maybe more broadly, do his meanings have meaning?

Ein sort of answered this already but I think there were two ways to answer the question I proposed. One to argue against our level of 'democracy' in America and one to (re)define what democracy is. I kinda just posted that link to get some discussion about a news show that is better than most, imo, and seems to have this kind of crap on it. Not sure if anyone else subscribes to the Breakingtheset youtube feed, but I do and it usually has some interesting things like Vice.

I have no subscriptions, so no to that specifically. Sure, democracy is open to redefinition, as are all things. But we do have something(s) in America, and some of those things are not as they are billed, regardless of semantical differences. Other things may be as billed, but not as good as the billing implies. I really hate the word "fascism"(or "fascist") because it is used to the point of meaninglessness. Which is why I responded as I did. What is fascism? America could be fascist, depending on the definition.

Derrida would proclaim every and all things democracy (in a way). Sure, we can do that. I have(in the past), essentially done that with the market, or "economic action". This lends itself to the somewhat preclassical term "political economy" in reference to the broad economy, if we combine the strains of thought that these perspectives pursue.

Yeah, that's why I wasn't upset without a direct response to the video. I mean you guys are way over my head most of the time and I was just bored and interested in hearing some other opinions about it.

Usually interested in debates, especially if I can kinda look like I know what i'm talking about.

Well that's good. For all the shit that comes your way (and I am no stranger to personalized social shit), I'm always welcoming to someone trying to pursue some level of personal enlightenment.

The thing about this thread is that is has mostly turned into Pat and I working through completely disparate strains of thought, influenced by disparate schools, through the generalized common ground of Philosophy. Pat is a literary scholar, and I am coming from a Psychology background. We both have strained through opposing economic criticisms of Global Capitalism©, and perhaps general ethical perspectives.

This plays out in a constant back and forth and intertwining of perspective on nearly everything. Of course, what I find somewhat common is personality, and I expect that our differences in that regard influence not only what we find, but what we find to be significant in what we find. To put it in Myers Briggs terms, we divide "significantly" on J and P. Pat looks and me and is like "Why ya J-in so much?" and I respond "Well you have to J if you're going to do anything ya friggin P!". In contrast, Pat probably thinks I've fallen prey to misguided dogmatism rooted in false knowledge of objectivity of meaning, or something like that (I always expect that characterizations of differing views will be decried as something approaching a strawman, so I try to acknowledge that liklihood).