Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
Some links to Woodbine: https://woodbine.website/ https://twitter.com/woodbinenyc/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/woodbine-into-the-future On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:06 PM Justin Charles < justinrobertchar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Brian. These folks aren’t alt-right. I can’t pin down the > politics precisely but Brian gets the Invisible Committee thing right. > They’re probably somewhere around leftcom/anarcho-communist/communization. > I’m pretty sure they’re somehow connected to the Woodbine collective in > Ridgewood, Queens. I picked up a copy of the pamphlet when I was at a > workshop there. > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 7:26 PM Brian Holmes > wrote: > >> This pamphlet reads like an American redux of The Invisible Committee. >> Its concepts and general outlook go back to a text like "Civil War" in >> Tiqqun #2. Its production values are within reach of anyone who can afford >> a laptop, an Amazon bucket and a domain name. Its imagery is of a piece >> with the rest; and by looking around on the web you can see that it was >> originally published as an orange-tinted book, so maybe the pseudo-print >> aesthetic has a simple explanation. >> >> The idea that it's a psychologist's honey-pot crafted to catch the naive >> is far-fetched. This is anarchy. The positions codified by Tiqqun and >> popularized by the Invisible Committee have become widespread through the >> experiences of Exarchia, the ZAD, Standing Rock and many others, with the >> Palestinian resistance and the Kurdish war of independence blazing in the >> background. The elemental question to be asked is, do I make common cause >> with these authors? A corollary line of questioning would be: Is civil war >> inevitable in the capitalist democracies? Could it have positive effects? >> >> I say no on all three counts. The serious threat of civil war comes from >> the extreme right, they have both the numbers and the guns. Throw gasoline >> on that fire and it will explode in your face. Punching a Nazi has become >> legitimate, yes, and it's a good thing. The legitimacy, I mean. That makes >> it possible to gather large numbers for anti-fascist demos and to seek >> criminal prosecution against the extremists, while city governments topple >> the statues of racists and carry out investigations of police abuse, etc. >> The rule of law is definitely not all it's cracked up to be, but its >> absence would be worse. The potential of life degrades exactly to the >> extent that societies are not able to keep violence of all kinds in check. >> In militarized countries like the US it has degraded a lot, and the point >> is to reverse the process, not accelerate it. >> >> The really weird thing here is the typeface, for sure. I think that in >> the age of atrophied thought and controlled imaginations there is an >> unconscious sexualized attraction to the passions of war, symbolized by the >> aesthetics of the 1930s. In this sense I agree with the gist of Ted's >> analysis: the intention is that of normalizing a largely fantasmatic >> violence, without realizing how enabling the practice of that fantasy can >> be for the hard right. >> >> Where I agree with Ian is that we do have to discuss these things. Energy >> companies ARE expanding their operations. Cities ARE being smashed by >> hurricanes. US troops ARE camped at the border with Mexico (and possibly >> militias too). How do you respond to a dystopian reality? What is the best >> strategy? With whom can you carry it out? How can you bring it up to scale? >> These are the questions we should be answering. >> >> best, Brian >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission >> # 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: > > -- > Justin Charles > 862.216.2467 > -- Justin Charles 862.216.2467 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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:
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
I agree with Brian. These folks aren’t alt-right. I can’t pin down the politics precisely but Brian gets the Invisible Committee thing right. They’re probably somewhere around leftcom/anarcho-communist/communization. I’m pretty sure they’re somehow connected to the Woodbine collective in Ridgewood, Queens. I picked up a copy of the pamphlet when I was at a workshop there. On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 7:26 PM Brian Holmes wrote: > This pamphlet reads like an American redux of The Invisible Committee. Its > concepts and general outlook go back to a text like "Civil War" in Tiqqun > #2. Its production values are within reach of anyone who can afford a > laptop, an Amazon bucket and a domain name. Its imagery is of a piece with > the rest; and by looking around on the web you can see that it was > originally published as an orange-tinted book, so maybe the pseudo-print > aesthetic has a simple explanation. > > The idea that it's a psychologist's honey-pot crafted to catch the naive > is far-fetched. This is anarchy. The positions codified by Tiqqun and > popularized by the Invisible Committee have become widespread through the > experiences of Exarchia, the ZAD, Standing Rock and many others, with the > Palestinian resistance and the Kurdish war of independence blazing in the > background. The elemental question to be asked is, do I make common cause > with these authors? A corollary line of questioning would be: Is civil war > inevitable in the capitalist democracies? Could it have positive effects? > > I say no on all three counts. The serious threat of civil war comes from > the extreme right, they have both the numbers and the guns. Throw gasoline > on that fire and it will explode in your face. Punching a Nazi has become > legitimate, yes, and it's a good thing. The legitimacy, I mean. That makes > it possible to gather large numbers for anti-fascist demos and to seek > criminal prosecution against the extremists, while city governments topple > the statues of racists and carry out investigations of police abuse, etc. > The rule of law is definitely not all it's cracked up to be, but its > absence would be worse. The potential of life degrades exactly to the > extent that societies are not able to keep violence of all kinds in check. > In militarized countries like the US it has degraded a lot, and the point > is to reverse the process, not accelerate it. > > The really weird thing here is the typeface, for sure. I think that in the > age of atrophied thought and controlled imaginations there is an > unconscious sexualized attraction to the passions of war, symbolized by the > aesthetics of the 1930s. In this sense I agree with the gist of Ted's > analysis: the intention is that of normalizing a largely fantasmatic > violence, without realizing how enabling the practice of that fantasy can > be for the hard right. > > Where I agree with Ian is that we do have to discuss these things. Energy > companies ARE expanding their operations. Cities ARE being smashed by > hurricanes. US troops ARE camped at the border with Mexico (and possibly > militias too). How do you respond to a dystopian reality? What is the best > strategy? With whom can you carry it out? How can you bring it up to scale? > These are the questions we should be answering. > > best, Brian > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #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: -- Justin Charles 862.216.2467 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #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:
Re: Identity and difference
Coming in late to this thread but the anti-identity current that's growing more and more prevalent on the left lately seems to be somewhat in opposition to contrary to materialism. To say that "class is class and only class has universal validity" strikes me as pretty idealist, not materialist. OneWhile race may not exist to Alexander Bard and Candace Owens, I'd argue that maybe it doesn't exist for them because materially it need not. Alexander is a white man. Candace Owens, while a black woman, has a class position that allows her to skip some over much of what it looks like to be black for most black people, who aren't well-compensated conservative (or liberal) commentators. Most black people's class position is deeply intertwined with the color of their skin. I don't think I need to go into the historical reasons for this. I'd also say that Asad Haider's book was in no way championing victimhood. If that's what one takes away from it then they've read an entirely different book than I did. On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:05 PM tbyfield wrote: > Ian, this idea of 'civility' should be unpacked a bit, because the ~word > lumps together a disparate range of concerns. At its worst, a lot of > babble about civility boils down to is tone-policing, which relies on > etiquette as an all-purpose tool for micromanaging rhetoric — and in > doing so, limiting and even delegitimizing positions of every type > (subjective, relational, political, whatever). In other contexts — > notably, in 'centrist' politics in the US — it serves as a rationale > for institutionalist pliability: 'bipartisan' cooperation, etc. But > those two uses are very different from its function as a foil for the > frightening prospect of outright political violence. These different > strands, or layers if you like, are hopelessly tangled, and that > confusion in itself has serious consequences — hence the culturalist > use of the word 'strategy,' which often is used to get at the nebulous > realm in which individual behavior aligns with (or 'is constitutive of') > abstract, impersonal forces. That's a very roundabout way to get at the > obvious problem, which is the direct way that increasingly uncivil > political discourse foments violence. And, in a way, that's the problem: > the left's path for translating ideals into political practices is > hobbled and misdirected at every stage, whereas for the right it's > becoming all too direct. > > My gut sense is that Land is symptomatic of the left's repudiation of > force — violence — as a legitimate form of politics. Some, like him, > sense that and embark a theoretical trajectory that tacitly accepts or > even actively embraces violence. I'll leave that there, because I don't > want to debate it or even to see a debate about it on this list. Nettime > is fragile, and decades of accumulated effort could be poisoned with a > few, um, 'uncivil' messages. There was a time when the solution was > widely said to be more speech, but at a time when 'more speech' means > trollbot networks that systematically and strategically subvert civil > contexts I think that rule is more problematic than ever. > > As for Bard, whenever his mail appears in inbox my first reaction is > "When's the new book coming out?" But that's a rhetorical question — > no answer needed, thanks. > > Cheers, > Ted > > > On 28 Oct 2018, at 10:48, Ian Alan Paul wrote: > > > Brett - I don't think that the problem of the Left is that we don't > > spend > > enough time with people who think it's worthwhile to discuss the > > potential > > virtues of "Candace Owens, Nick Land and/or Adolf Hitler." If > > anything, the > > Left needs to thoroughly rid itself of the liberal and depoliticizing > > notion that we should all simply get along in the name of preserving > > civility, esp. in a historical moment while fascist gangs are > > literally > > roaming the streets beating up migrants, synagogues are being shot up, > > and > > pipe bombs are being mailed to politicians. > > > > I don't think Alexander's ideas are worth engaging with or even > > refuting to > > be entirely honest, as I hope is obvious to most people on Nettime by > > this > > point. We live in times that are too extreme and urgent to expend any > > attention or energy dialoguing with disingenuous apologists for the > > Right . > <...> > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cul
