Quote note (#318)

If this is a realistic left re-emerging, bring it on (it’s a feast of insight and sharp sentences). The conclusion in particular, if a little repetitive, is radically sound:

Under such [impending] conditions, the future of progressive and future-oriented mass politics of the left is very uncertain. […] In a world set on objectifying everybody and every living thing in the name of profit, the erasure of the political by capital is the real threat. The transformation of the political into business raises the risk of the elimination of the very possibility of politics. […] Whether civilisation can give rise at all to any form of political life is the problem of the 21st century.

Depoliticization is the only thing the right should be serious about doing.

December 29, 2016admin 37 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , ,

37 Responses to this entry

  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    Looks like it’s too clever for your USA readership.

    [NL]: “Depoliticization is the only thing the right should be serious about doing.”

    {AK}: The ‘political’ right? Wouldn’t that be a deconstruction of it? Not just a ‘deconstruction’, but a zerstorung (destruction), lol?

    My first comment on this blog, quoted: “There can be only one.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2016 at 3:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    realistic left

    Cannot exist. The left is based on ideology, or how “things should be.” This is inherently bigoted against reality, which explains why the Left always gets popular for their salesman-like ideas, then spirals out of control.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    No, it’s the USA that creates fixed ideologisation for all political positions.
    Religion has a lot to do with it.
    How “things should be”, & how ‘things actually are’, are not at all entirely straightforward or easy to determine. ‘Common sense’, only goes so far.
    Populism is not exclusive to the ‘Left’, as anyone can see.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2016 at 3:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    Depoliticization is the only thing the right should be serious about doing.

    Yes, yes, and a thousand times yes!

    Intelligent, competent people in the Heinlein sense have no need of politics. We are able to create our own futures and destinies on our own, independent of politics. Politics is nothing more than that thing that impedes us from our pursuit of our goals and is thus superfluous.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    No politics, no law.
    No law, then war.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    The author Achille Mbembe is just a planet of the apes pundit in his chimp brain he vaguely understand something is going on here.

    No politics, no law.
    No law, then war.

    When 55.5 % of the population can be brainwashed to legally piss in the cornflakes of the 49.5% of the population resistant to brainwashing, then war is inevitable.You are simply a generation that has not witnessed the mean reversion and thinks its different this time.

    Markets also settle disagreements, without war. In fact less violently than politics, The trick is preventing market losers from resorting to politics and war anyway.Reaction seems to gloss over this because they are not warriors.

    Dr Chimp correctly sees data could be used to disconnect people from government, and so politics., There will be much resistance [war politics] to that because this same tech will eliminate the need for private sector replacement labor, expect france like reactions.The crisis that will force the issue will kill leftism and multiculturalism but will reward elites with colonization contracts instead a much better model as non whites can be more efficiently managed with methods tailored to non white traits.

    This is what I find interesting if off topic
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867416316646

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjbAgwdBaTI

    cant resist

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [collen ryan] “Markets also settle disagreements, without war. In fact less violently than politics, The trick is preventing market losers from resorting to politics and war anyway.Reaction seems to gloss over this because they are not warriors.”

    {AK}:The pattern is usually this:

    “It is interesting to note that Allan Ramsay likewise deplored “a friendly alliance between the camp and the counting-house” for exactly the same reasons (Letters on the Present Disturbances, p.34). Ramsay maintained that of the evil consequences of such alliance “the two last wars carried on by England against France and Spain, furnish a most melancholy illustration. To obtain the sole and exclusive commerce of the western world, in which the French and Spaniards were their rivals, was the modest wish of our merchants, in conjunction with our Americans. The fair, and truly commercial, method of effecting this would have been, by superior skill, industry and frugality, to have undersold their rivals at market: but that method appearing slow and troublesome to a luxurious people, whose extraordinary expences* required extraordinary profits, a more expeditous one was devised; which was that of driving their rivals entirely out of the seas, and preventing them from bringing their goods at all to market. For this purpose, not having any fleets or armies of their own, the powers of the State were found necessary, and they applied them accordingly” (ibid., pp.32 f.).

    Knorr, K. E. ‘Ch02-Part2 British Colonial Theories 1570-1850’. In British Colonial Theories, 1570-1850. The University of Toronto Press, 1944.”

    That’s the usual way.
    You can’t prevent “market losers” from “resorting to politics and war”; the ‘Alt-Right’ & this blog are examples of that, I’ve said it before.

    [collen ryan] “The crisis that will force the issue will kill leftism and multiculturalism but will reward elites with colonization contracts instead a much better model as non whites can be more efficiently managed with methods tailored to non white traits.
    This is what I find interesting if off topic http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867416316646

    In a way, isn’t that happening, anyway, the contracts?
    The question of efficient management, generally, is the point; but it’s not an easy question, without clarity about issues. I’m not convinced that anyone has the key to this, in terms of actual policy. Perhaps Africa might develop a new way?
    Multiculturalism is unavoidable, the internet alone ensures that. The question is what forms arise from it.
    It looks like ‘Left’ & ‘Right’ often say the same things these days. I don’t know.
    The link looks interesting. Thanks. At my age, I should be interested, lol.

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    I stand by my point. We all know how the liberal-left wants to politicize every personal and private life choice one might make. But much of the “alt-right” social conservative types are not much better. I just saw a rant on one of the neo-reaction sites about how millennials in particular were prioritizing their lives around international travel. Sounds good to me. But apparently its too much for the anal-retentive neo-reaction guy who make the pod-cast.

    My life is my private business. If I want to travel a lot, and am willing to give up other options and overhead costs to do so, that’s my business. Its not your’s or anyone elses.

    I am sick of both the left AND the right making a political issue of how I live my life. My life and myself are my private property, period. If you can’t handle this then you can shove it!

    Screw politics.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    I agree.

    Posted on December 29th, 2016 at 4:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mike Says:

    “Abetted by technological and military might, finance capital has achieved its hegemony over the world by annexing the core of human desires and, in the process, by turning itself into the first global secular theology.”

    Indecipherable bourgeois-left wank (“annexing the core of…”) aside, this doesn’t quite sound right: one of the sigils of the transition in eras is a shift from “finance capitalism” to “information capitalism” (to coin a term, which I’m sure someone else has already done).

    For example (http://therightstuff.biz/2016/11/27/pizzagate-2/):

    “We are now seeing power shift from Finance to Information. This is why the Alt-Right is ascendant, because our movement is digital-native. We sing the songs of the nation now, and we care not who makes its laws. This is the essential nature of the Deep State coup d’etat we are currently undergoing, as the control is shifting away from those who control finance and into the hands of those who control information.”

    Second, surely cryptocurrency (another sigil of the transition) isn’t compatible with the traditional model to date of “finance capitalism” (whatever that is)?

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    There will be a diminishing return on alt right. While the left is the only side calling for genocide the alt right does well, at a certain point alt right shoots itself in the foot and becomes the excuse for the lefts call for white genocide being legitimate.Alt right should switch to false flag ops

    [Reply]

    Salger Reply:

    > While the left is the only side calling for genocide the alt right does well, at a certain point alt right shoots itself in the foot and becomes the excuse for the lefts call for white genocide being legitimate

    But genocide might be necessary for America, let alone the world to reach its potential in producivity. As one Mitt Romney pointed out in his quip on the 47%, America has an overly large population of the less productive, more violently criminal, who eat a larger chunk of government milk. Even accounting for race, White women eat a significantly larger chunk of Uncle Sam’s plate than White men do while being far less productive.

    And this is America, there are lands rich in resources who suffer from a population too low to ever push them for all they can get (see Africa). The Oil States depend on Whitey’s cash. So much of the world is outdated equipment.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    Finance is attempting to consolidate its hold on Information.
    The ‘Alt-Right’ is not yet cohesive; nor is it exactly opposed to Finance; rather it is the contemporary form of older ideologies, against a system that has grown out of & yet beyond those ideologies.
    The nation-state is rapidly becoming redundant; its continuation as online digitalised chant is as easy to appropriate as any other digital content. Virtualisation is no more immune to Finance, than the infrastructure that supports it.
    Cryptocurrency is the way that current Finance could begin to lose its control.

    [Reply]

    brainwashed idiot Reply:

    While I mostly agree, I think there’s something to be said for, well, not quite nation-states, but nationalism, and why I think the reading that multiculturalism is inevitable is a mistake. In fact, I think multiculturalism is likely to get thrown overboard

    Finance capitalism, embodied as a ruling class in our managerial/technocratic/wtv the fuck you want to call them elite could not give less of a fuck about its subject so long as theyre occupied doing something other than opposing them. It makes this clear by being willing to move entire companies to different countries and allowing barely limited migration. Progressivism, as an ideology, is perfectly synchronized with sfinance in this regard, because progressivism replicates itself memetically, has univeral conceits anyway and if its hosts biological replication collapses to zero it has no issue with importing new hosts.

    The issue here is even if both these vectors are pointed the same way, humans have a few impulses that you always have to reckon with. You know the good old puritan gag reflex? The egalitarian impulse. Its strong, and old, and it needs to be sated if your system is going to unfold the way it wants to. Of course you can stimulate it in a purely pornographic way, you don’t need to have any actual egalitarianism around, but egalitarian pornography is bloody everywhere.

    The xenophobic impulse is not trivial and I think the current pattern has no answer for it. Progressives being xenophobic towards a group they damned as xenophobes was an interesting trick and I give it full marks. But that jig is up. The right wing thats currently on the offense is in part a manifestation of a xenophobic gag reflex. So whats the “pornographic” substitute here, to misdirect this energy away from ripping multiculturalism to pieces, and taking a good bite out of the bottom line with it? Its not so easy to distract people from the fact that they’re living around people they feel threatened by; that feeling happens on as deep a level as any we experience, its so deep most people don’t even understand they experience it regularly. Self-segregating is a fact of life, but it manifests itself psychically as being forced to retreat, to flee before an invading army. And these losers, when they ask themselves if they deserved to lose, if they can be satisfied with the loss, whats the answer that comes to their minds? Did the Germans believe they lost the first World War?

    Finance or managerial capitalism will probably succeed in figuring out some kind of new political formula, but that formula might well include a concession to xenophobia. This is the nonredundant role of something like a “nation-state”. It’s also why China is probably a better avatar for Finance compared to us. No silly puritan gag reflex, social darwinism, full speed ahead, and no xenophobic gag reflex, either, if you aren’t born Chinese tough luck.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2016 at 4:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Aristocles Invictvs Says:

    Reeks of Fukuyama…

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2016 at 5:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jeffrey S. Says:

    Realistic left? His first couple of paragraphs repeat classic left-wing nonsense about Israel and U.S. prisons. I can’t trust anything that comes afterwards.

    [Reply]

    brainwashed idiot Reply:

    It gets a fair bit better. The introduction lasts I would say the first 6 or 7 paragraphs and its trash. I would not have kept reading had it not been for our hosts endorsement, and was pleasant surprising by the shift in quality that happens at about “None of the above is accidental”

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2016 at 10:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    “Depoliticization is the only thing the right should be serious about doing.”

    If it keeps your troops in the field – then of course.

    Not to mention it’s due altogether on own merits.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 29th, 2016 at 11:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    remove time from analisys and it will enhance vividness and clarity. with introduction of time arrow, things going to become extremely complex fast. but how without time we can arrive to let say to the end of 2017. why not to remove history from analysis, all sort of causations will be gone too. then it will be possible to approach from purely mathematical point and analyse linear dynamics of 2017. by having such simplified approach we can focus on factors which can be important for survival of humanity. how about food. if we reduce food supply to ants colony, its population going to shrink quickly. I bet food is important for humans too, but why then population growing in Madagascar where almost no food. Food is not important.

    there is classical system dynamics world model made by J Forrester in 80s this model predicted earth population grow up to exact numbers for last 40 years. Some people decided brutalise this model and remove some components like levels, loops ect. they removed Agricalture and all investments into agriculture, still model show exactly same numbers in world population grow. Food is not important. (Mahov C.A. rus)

    From 8 initial levels they keep only 3 and still model delivered perfect and accurate predictions.
    what I’m trying to say is that more simpler our vision more clear picture we can get. I do not trying to reduce complexity, I question validity of complexity as a pragmatic prediction tool. let say question is what human population number going to look like at the end of of 2017. it probably going to be 10% of what we have now. what about predictions up to 2050 (Hawksworth 2006). what populations numerbs will looks like 1% or 50% from now.

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    —> remove time from analisys and it will enhance vividness <

    aka. Under the auspecies of eternity

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    removing time from analisy, besides of other de-biasing benefites, let us to disregard disorienting complexity of causations and focus on interpretation of data only.

    this aproach definitely been used in this article and complexity of represented static image almost give a feeling that causation is there.

    this trick becoming increasingly popular on left and elswhere. for example in Trump plans max what is disclosed 2-3 steps, and not step 4, becase that is when shit happens. like, we going to stop imperialistic war and bring troops home, and not what happen next, because civil war is what will happen.if he will go to step “4”, he will have to add after proposition – see, I told ya, shit happens. solution is simple just remove time from analisys, and face what ever next.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2016 at 5:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • void psychosis Says:

    admin, this is the kind of thing that had me go into exile from the (ultra)left. I don’t see this kind of thinking spreading. It has the doom meme all over it. This is anathema to utopia and to ignoring temporal instability. This isn’t saying anything new though.

    Question:

    You say “re-emerging.” Please provide markers identifying the realism as was, ie. names of individuals/organizations, dates. Be as schematic as you like.

    [Reply]

    John Hannon Reply:

    D & G perhaps? admin in the 90s?
    Suppose it depends on how far the designation “left” can be stretched.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    there is popular notion of politics ending in economy and it does not appears as convincing to me. if that would be the case, politics must be gone by now.

    more realistic possibility is that data flow going finish politics. if we take look at politics as set of rules, then it is algorithmic. to be right or left one have to stick to their particular algorithms.

    algorithm function depend on data flow and here it goes… ‘infinite amounts of information interfere with and re-program algorithmic procedures… and data produce alien rules.’ (Parisi 2013)

    I suspect that current disintegration of establishment is mediated by just data. we are stepping into the age of AI and algorithmic processes ( eg politics) going to be replaced everywhere by AI. same as algorithmic search had been replaced by AI on google search page. power distribution is defined by rules and since rules have be changed quite frequently, (accordingly with data flow) then it is AI going to distribute power. who esle can comprehend what current set of rules are. when set of rules going to have size of 200 TB.

    more on this
    http://effimera.org/red-stack-attack-algorithms-capital-and-the-automation-of-the-common-di-tiziana-terranova/

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Politics exist as long as zoon politikon exists.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2016 at 7:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Asher Says:

    @Artxell Knaphni

    “How “things should be”, & how ‘things actually are’, are not at all entirely straightforward or easy to determine.”

    This is not what Brett is talking about. “Ought” and “Is” are distinct categories of human experience. While “what is” is not always clear, the distinction between normative and explanatory thinking is very clear. What happens is that when one begins from a position of “how the world ought to be”, e.g. no child should go to bed hungry, one begins to lose the ability to grasp cause and effect.

    Normative thinking tends to crowd out analytical thinking, at least if we are talking about a global context. Holding normative assumptions for oneself and one’s immediate relations is a separate category of experience from universal normative standards.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Asher] ““How “things should be”, & how ‘things actually are’, are not at all entirely straightforward or easy to determine.”
    This is not what Brett is talking about. “Ought” and “Is” are distinct categories of human experience. While “what is” is not always clear, the distinction between normative and explanatory thinking is very clear. What happens is that when one begins from a position of “how the world ought to be”, e.g. no child should go to bed hungry, one begins to lose the ability to grasp cause and effect.
    Normative thinking tends to crowd out analytical thinking, at least if we are talking about a global context. Holding normative assumptions for oneself and one’s immediate relations is a separate category of experience from universal normative standards.”

    {AK}: Okay, rephrase: “How “things should be” is not at all entirely straightforward or easy to determine.”
    & “How ‘things actually are’, is not at all entirely straightforward or easy to determine.”

    Relations of clausal subsequence are additive, but not necessarily semantically conflatable beyond the clause describing them (“not at all entirely straightforward or easy to determine”).
    The implicit point of my statement, is that neither the ‘Ought’, nor the ‘is’, are easy to establish as absolutes.
    “[T]he distinction between normative and explanatory thinking” is not clear, as the normative standards of whatever consensual structures are utilised, inform all ‘explanation’. The limits of those standards exercise constraints on such explanation.
    Thus explanation is always contingent on particular interpretations of the causal, on readings of ‘experience’.
    Analytical thinking can only analyse whatever is received, but is easily distorted if the nature of that reception is constrained in ways that exclude relevant factors.
    The very ‘real’ possibility of global context, given by technological systems, necessarily introduces, at the very least, a planetary consideration, if not a truly ‘universal’ one.
    Every shopping experience, at a local supermarket, is the global transaction of planetary productions.

    If one takes issue with the ‘Ought’ & the ‘is’ not being easy to establish as absolutes, saying such absolutism is unnecessary, working criteria suffice. The germane question is what do those criteria ‘work for’?
    Do they ‘work’ over the range of planetary production which they actually utilise?
    Are they sustainable, etc.?
    If not, the entire rationale of ‘Western civilisation’ & all its alleged exceptionalisms collapse(s).
    Leaving the irony of the ‘Alt-Right’ singing the songs of these exceptionalisms, while the PR of their global dominion utterly fails. Leaving the ‘Alt-Right’ simultaneously celebrating the victories of ‘Market Capitalism’ & ‘Modernity’, yet complaining when there is the least hint of their being its victims.
    ‘Illogical hypocrisy’, is a good phrase for this. ‘Stupidity’, is better. ‘Inferiority’, is the best.

    [Reply]

    Salger Reply:

    > Do they ‘work’ over the range of planetary production which they actually utilise?

    Looking at the garbage pits of Cuba with Venezuela, the laughable Obama administration, and how behind Russia with China are I’d say the Leftys are losing on the working front.n

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2016 at 2:35 am Reply | Quote
  • Asher Says:

    Jeffrey S. Says:

    Realistic left? His first couple of paragraphs repeat classic left-wing nonsense about Israel and U.S. prisons. I can’t trust anything that comes afterwards.

    I tend to agree but I do think it’s important to keep an open mind that one can be socially persuaded to spout such boilerplate and not be wholly invested in what people normally mean by this. I’m a staunch opponent of the US drug war and agree that there are a decent number of people in US prisons that have no business being there.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    You dont know what youre talking about its pretty hard to get a room in US prisons, they are crowded, and judges are faggots, and police are hamstrung, Drug convictions are what they charge really violent criminals with, because other crimes are hard to prove; eliminate drug laws and you will unleash the hounds of hell

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    ‘The United States is the world leader in incarcerating citizens. 707 people out of every 100,000 are imprisoned. If those currently incarcerated in the US prison system were a country, it would be the 102nd most populated nation in the world ….’
    A Country Called Prison: Mass Incarceration and the Making of a New Nation
    Book by John D. Carl and Mary D. Looman

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    That’s right, and its something to consider. Breaking it down between state and local incarceration vs. federal incarceration, 90% of the people in the state prison system are there for recognizable common law crimes (robbery, murder, theft, etc.) and maybe 10% are in for drug-related offences. The federal case is totally different. Something like 50% of those incarcerated in the federal system are for drug-related offences (possession, dealing) and much of the remaining 50% are classified as offences against the public order or similar such bullshit.

    Its the existence of federal “crimes” that is the crime against humanity in the U.S.

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    The ‘war on drugs’ was a highly successful smokescreen for getting niggers off the streets and thus lowering crime rates.

    Alas, that simply sending them back to africa on a boat or back to their ancestors in bodybags was not the politically correct option.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2016 at 2:38 am Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Admin PLZ do a podcast with Kevin MacDonald, Jim Donald, and Norm MacDonald.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2016 at 3:57 am Reply | Quote
  • abcdefg Says:

    sounds like a lot of whining and complaining to me without an ounce of respect being directed toward those fartbutts that the author seems to be blaming for everything wrong in the world

    if people want to know why things are going to pot, they need only look at themselves in the reflection of their own closed offness. if you want to make your utopia, the first step is, as a matter of fact, realizing that the people you despise are more or less right about a lot of those things they talk about, in their own way.

    the left seems to lack the remaining ability to do something like this because it crosses their religious/cult line of religious dogma which they hold to with all their might. this religious cult they are a part of is the cause, not the solution to, the new hell this world is falling into – human nature will always remain to some extent. whining about it won’t fix it. denying it won’t either. complaining.

    there is little hope, and i only really say this because i believe the amount of people who care enough to actually say what needs to be said is so small that it’s really not even worth it. the world really IS going down the toilet and all it would really take to stop it would be say, 50% of those really irritating liberal minded morons just admitting publicly that most of the things we talk about are reasonable, valid, and worth giving some fair time in the court of philosophical and intellectual discourse. instead they’ll continue to cling to their cathedral cult while the world burns to the ground, most likely.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2016 at 10:20 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2017/01/01) - Social Matter Says:

    […] Filed under Said Like It’s a Bad Thing, Nick Land has an interesting Quote Note. […]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 9:25 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment