Tell it, Brian! Solidarity, your thoughtful posts keep me lurking on this list!
Ben Sent from my iPhone > On 3 Mar 2023, at 20:56, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I find it very amusing that a thread devoted to Germany's relations to China > is conceived as a conspiracy theory that aims at covering up the reality of > Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. > > It seems to me rather *legitimate* to explore what might be happening between > Germany, the US and China, at a time when the possibilities of a war between > the US and China are being discussed in major news and > international-relations publications across the world. God forbid, I even > find it legitimate to explore what these tensions have to do with the Ukraine > war, at a time the international relations experts are analyzing China's > growing support for Russia, and worrying whether China might actually send > arms to Russia, raising the spectre of - God forbid it again - something like > a "proxy war." (Sorry, the word and the thought are taboo, I know.) > > Hmmm, I somehow recall saying very clearly in an earlier thread that I am in > favor of NATO arming Ukraine, but simultaneously, I am wary of what comes > next, the possibility of a larger conflict. Doesn't matter, conspiracy > theorists always do that, it's not worth reading what they actually say. > > Speaking of reading, Andre and Ted, perhaps you guys have read the books by > Bruno Macaes, "Belt and Road" and "The Dawn of Eurasia", and surely you have > verified the conspirational nature of that kind of thinking? I guess you > would have to throw in reams of articles in publications like Foreign Affairs > and so on, the kind of stuff that I consult before writing, known conspiracy > theorists all. > > Ted, when you've finished The Dawn of Eurasia - go ahead, it won prizes back > in 2016, and rightly so, because it predicted the current era of > inter-civilizational conflict between Russia, China and the US - well, when > you've finished that, I am sure you will be convinced that Macaes, too, is a > conspiracy theorist, and surely a "leftoid" to boot (after all, I think he > mentions Aleksandr Dugin in there, and only leftoids do that). After a little > study you will be able to better analyze and trash whatever I might come up > with next. > > Just throw in Macaes' recent publications in The New Statesman, and it will > give you a very accurate picture of the paralyzing lack of agency that you > diagnose with such consummate precision. Go ahead, look at all that, take > some time to put it all in the balance, and reconcile the results with your > horror at anyone who attempts a 'why' explanation of complex world events. > > thoughtfully, Brian > >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 9:10 AM Ted Byfield <tedbyfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Andre, you really nailed it. >> >> As some may have noticed, the US in particular is suffering from, let's >> say, a *maldistribution of agency*. It's mostly imaginary, but like all >> imaginaries, it functions like a mass-magic spell: its very unreality >> makes it that much more real. >> >> The left — not a good name for it, but that's a discussion for another >> time — has been consumed with efforts to "give agency to" or "empower" >> its various grassroots constituencies for decades. I happen to support >> those liberationist struggles, *and* I can also see the myriad ways >> those cultural activities are inextricably intertwined with the left's >> plainly obvious inability to effectively occupy governmental entities >> and functions at *any* level. The right, which has been supremely >> effective at subsuming government functions — whether by simply taking >> them over or by rewriting the laws and media that construct them — is >> consumed with growing imaginary allegations of excessive agency: >> conspiracies, "the gubmint," "globalists," various insidious "agendas," >> "cancellations," "false flags" (i.e., misattributed agency), and >> ridiculous "lizard people"–style nonsense (i.e., allegations of infinite >> agency to entities that look like they don't have agency *because they >> look like us*), etc, etc >> >> More: US police forces are increasingly consumed by their sense of >> helplessness and even fragility, even as their numbers skyrocket, their >> budgets and powers expand uncontrollably, and the quantity and "quality" >> of their weaponry — as well as their willingness to use it on the >> slightest pretext — has metastasized. >> >> US courts have become little more than a forum for rightists to >> adjudicate ways to destroy ideas and facts developed by the left. But >> the courts can't *do* anything directly — all they can do is direct >> other branches not do or not do this or that. So they too are acutely >> aware of their lack of agency and power, even as they grow by the day. >> >> And the US federal government, with almost undisputed military and >> financial power, is suffering from some sort of collective aphasia, >> unable to effectively *name* the abuses tearing people's lives to >> pieces: "insurrection" and "coup," the "mass murder" of gun violence, >> "criminal negligence" (like public beta tests of allegedly self-driving >> cars on the public at large), mass "disenfranchisement" through >> gerrymandering and worse, the "indentured servitude" of student debt and >> the "slavery" of so much employment, the "price-gouging" and >> "profiteering" of corporations, large-scale "fraud" and "theft" by >> networks of grifters. The state's undisputed power to *name* things is >> dissolving into endless scholastic debates and procedural formalisms, >> resulting in inexplicable paralysis. It's a prime example of how *seeing >> like a state* — which is more about naming than seeing — both works and >> doesn't work: if you can't name it you can't do anything about it, so if >> you don't want to do anything about just don't name it. >> >> I could go on with this list, but there's no need because they're all >> variations on the same paradoxical misapprehension of agency. People, >> institutions, forces see it where it isn't, can't see it where it is, >> imagine they have none and others have it all. >> >> No realistic or effective analysis of agency or power can come from this >> mess. >> >> The funny-not-funny thing about this is that the left has the conceptual >> tools it needs to sort this out this, but (wait for it...) can't seem to >> use them. For example, if someone were to apply theories of >> intersectionality — a staple of leftist thinking that comes from (cue >> the horror-movie soundtrack) CRT and therefore for domestic use only — >> to Ukraine and its people, lo and behold, their struggle could be seen >> in both/and rather than either/or terms: as part of a cynical >> geopolitical strategy *and* a legitimate struggle for autonomy, as >> politically problematic *and* morally right, as terrifyingly risky *and* >> worth the risk, etc. But acknowledging that might mean supporting their >> struggle, however awful the consequences. >> >> And that support would violate Rule #1: it would be *inconsistent*. >> Inconsistent, that is, with other stances and beliefs - pacifism or >> commitment to nonviolence, say. And so we can see that one major >> obstacle to support often has little or nothing to do with actual >> Ukrainians, their actual lives, their actual country. Instead, it stems >> from a reluctance to make exceptions on whatever grounds, to hold >> incompatible beliefs, to recommend one thing in one context and its >> opposite in another. To do that, to take the personal authority of >> believing things that don't fit together easily or clearly, is a >> sovereign act: it asserts priority over the systems of thought that >> constrain agency. >> >> Doing that, being inconsistent, doesn't go well these days, because much >> of our mediated landscape — and therefore much of our conversational >> landscape, at every level — is devoted to "holding people accountable" >> for being, saying, or doing inconsistent things. Your career prospects >> will tank, your credit score will plummet, and your insurance rates will >> skyrocket. Your puritanically consistent friends will (as we've seen >> here) denounce you as hypnotized by the "media" or "propaganda," or just >> a "troll," or some will suspect you must've taken some colored pill — >> red, blue, black, it doesn't matter which, as long as it can explain >> away your sense of agency. Academia, consumed by nonsense about >> ever-narrower job titles, consistent patterns of consistent publication, >> application of consistent "methodologies," will banish you. And if >> anyone pays too much attention, the media will treat you variously as >> "mavericky," a "personality," or part of — that is, consistent with — >> some subculture organized around either (a) the assertion of raw >> privilege that consists entirely and only of being completely >> incoherent, or (b) some boutique model of hyper-consistency applied to >> anything without regard for others' humanity — for example, incels on >> the one hand, long-termists on the other. >> >> And so it's no surprise to see, basically, white male leftists receding >> into the ether of world-systems theory — again, consumed with dreams of >> finding some consistency. That is, taking a view (which implies >> occupying a position, however imaginary) whose theoretical >> sophistication and breadth of considerations are matched only by a >> complete lack of engagement with the simple truth: one country — which >> as you say, has a broken political environment — ruthlessly invaded >> another country and has rained total destruction on it for a year now. >> So, again as you say, we imagine Ukrainians are, or at least should be, >> *like us*: NPCs — that is, no agency. And the recommendation is that >> they should accept *being like us* by submitting to an inexorable and >> incoherent system of power. If they'd just do that, everything would be >> fine. For us. But they won't, so we should stop helping them to be >> different from us. >> >> The solipsism you point out is really astonishing. And it certainly >> affects the UK, but someone else who knows more would have to make that >> argument. But, clearly, the UK suffers from dynamics that are all too >> similar: a lunatic series of Tory governments that have systematically >> plundered all things public and rewritten the fabric of everyday life at >> every level — all so they could, in their own way, *be like us*, and not >> like those awful people on the continent who don't suffer quite so much >> from problems of agency. >> >> If people want to object specifically and concretely to support for >> Ukraine's fight for independence, that's a conversation worth having. >> But grounding opposition in imaginary terrains whose defining qualities >> are abstraction — systemic, theoretical, historical — that negates what >> anyone with eyes and ears can see, no. Those considerations might be >> real, valid, or important, but if weighing them *necessarily* results in >> paralysis — a lack of agency that seeks to deny others' agency — that's >> not a conversation worth having, because it's not really a conversation. >> >> Cheers, >> Ted >> >> >> On 1 Mar 2023, at 5:37, Andre Rebentisch wrote: >> >> > An interesting pattern - also in conspiracy theory type imagination - is >> > to imagine your own government as a capable, acting party that in a way >> > starts or controls developments. Basically one ensures that the >> > main narration is its capability to lead action, good or evil. >> > >> > Here we have a uthless invader of Ukraine and a broken political >> > environment in Russia, but instead one talks about the West. and >> > Ukraine supposedly did something wrong but not on its own but as a >> > proxy that distracts Europe from its smarter geopolitical choices, >> > whatever they are, something Chinese, Tianxia. >> > >> > You know, like there is no Vietnamese perspective in the Vietnam war >> > narrative complex, all are NPC. It is all about US faults, suffering, >> > politicians, soldiers, veterans, protests. >> > >> > One does not leave it to Russia to do wrong and for Ukraine to suffer and >> > others to react, the initiative needs to be claimed for "us" who allegedly >> > orchestrate it to go wrong. >> > >> > -- A >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
