Thursday, July 9, 2020

Spectre's and Other Phantasms

Slavoj Žižek, "The Spectre Is Still Roaming Around! (Introduction)"
The first, automatic reaction of today’s enlightened liberal reader to The Communist Manifesto is: Is the text not simply wrong on many empirical accounts, with regard to the picture it gives of the social situation, as well as with regard to the revolutionary perspective it sustains and propagates? Was there ever a political manifesto that was more clearly falsified by subsequent historical reality? Is The Communist Manifesto not, at best, an exaggerated extrapolation of certain tendencies discernible in the 19th century?

So, let us approach The Communist Manifesto from the opposite end: Where do we live today, in our global “post … ” (postmodern, postindustrial) society? The slogan that is imposing itself more and more is that of “globalization”: the brutal imposition of a unified world market that threatens all local ethnic traditions, including the very form of the nation-state. And, in this situation, is not the description in the Manifesto of the social impact of the bourgeoisie more topical than ever?

“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty, and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all newly formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

“The need for a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

“The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All long-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life-and-death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw materials, but raw materials drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.”

Is this not, more than ever, our reality today? Think about Ericsson phones, which are no longer Swedish, about Toyota cars, 60% of which are manufactured in the USA, about the Hollywood culture that pervades the remotest parts of the globe … Yes, this is our reality—on condition that we do not forget to supplement this image from the Manifesto with its inherent dialectical opposite, the “spiritualization” of the very material process of production. That is to say, on the one hand, capitalism entails the radical secularization of social life—it mercilessly tears apart any aura of authentic nobility, sacredness, honor, etc.

“It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”

However, the fundamental lesson of the “critique of political economy” elaborated by the mature Marx in the years after the Manifesto is that this reduction of all heavenly chimeras to the brutal economic reality generates a spectrality of its own. When Marx describes the mad, self-enhancing circulation of capital, whose solipsistic path of self-fecundation reaches its apogee in today’s metareflexive speculations on futures, it is far too simplistic to claim that the specter of this self-engendering monster that pursues its path disregarding any human or environmental concern is an ideological abstraction, and that one should never forget that, behind this abstraction, there are real people and natural objects on whose productive capacities and resources the capital’s circulation is based, and on which it feeds like a gigantic parasite. The problem is that this “abstraction” is not only in our (financial speculator’s) misperception of social reality, but that it is “real” in the precise sense of determining the structure of the very material social processes: the fate of whole strata of the population and sometimes of whole countries can be decided by the “solipsistic” speculative dance of Capital, which pursues its goal of profitability in a blessed indifference to how its movement will affect social reality. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much uncannier than the direct precapitalist socioideological violence: this violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals and their “evil” intentions, but is purely “objective,” systemic, anonymous. Here we should recall Etienne Balibar, who distinguishes two opposite but complementary modes of excessive violence in today’s world: the “ultraobjective” (“structural”) violence that is inherent in the social conditions of global capitalism (the “automatic” creation of excluded and dispensable individuals, from the homeless to the unemployed), and the “ultrasubjective” violence of newly emerging ethnic and/or religious (in short: racist) “fundamentalisms”—this second “excessive” and “groundless” violence is just a counterpart to the first violence.

The fact of this “anonymous” violence also allows us to make a more general point about anticommunism. The pleasure provided by anticommunist reasoning was that communism made it so easy to play the game of finding the culprit, blaming the Party, Stalin, Lenin, ultimately Marx himself, for the millions of dead, for terror, and for gulags, while in capitalism, there is nobody on whom one can pin guilt or responsibility, things just happened that way, through anonymous mechanisms, although capitalism has been no less destructive in terms of human and environmental costs, destroying aboriginal cultures … In short, the difference between capitalism and communism is that communism was perceived as an idea which then failed in its realization, while capitalism functioned “spontaneously.” There is no Capitalist Manifesto.

35 comments:

  1. Christopher Steele's dossier was raw intelligence. He never claimed it was 100 percent accurate. It has, however, proven to be largely accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quote: The dossier contains allegations against several of Trump's campaign officials and associates of having secret contacts with Russians during the campaign. Steele's raw intelligence reports cited unnamed sources alleging these communications were part of a widespread effort to collude on the election and secure the White House for Trump.

    When the memos spilled into public view, Trump and at least five other senior administration officials denied in emphatic and often sweeping terms that anyone involved in the campaign was in contact with Russians. But in the two years since those denials were issued, news reports and court filings revealed that at least 16 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition. [end quote]

    ReplyDelete
  3. lol!

    The Miss Universe pageant, sponsored by Trump, was held 2013 in Russia. STOP THE PRESSES: Trump knew a few Russians!

    That's your proof of the veracity of the Steele dossier? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's when the pee tape was recorded. While it hasn't been verified, I believe it is likely real. Who knows if it will ever go public. The Apprentice tapes on which Dotard uses the N-word and other racist language haven't gone public either. But there are people who say they've seen them.

    If Dotard knowing Russians was no big deal, why did he deny it? And wtf was he (and other members of his campaign) talking to Russians he knew because Miss Universe was held in Russia? What does running for US president have to do with a beauty pageant? Give me a break.

    btw, you asked for a SINGLE fact proven accurate. That isn't the only one. So it isn't my " "proof of the veracity of the Steele dossier". It's ONE fact that proves the dossier's veracity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. lol!

    The main campaign contact that the Steele report was obsessed with was Carter Page, a likely CIA Asset who testified for the FBI and broke up a Russian spy ring. As a Naval Academy student, Carter Page specialized in Russia.

    OMG, Carter Page had Russian contacts... of course he did. He was a US SPY! LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...and THAT is why he has such a smirky sh*t-eatting grin on his face during every interview on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why were they talking to Russians throughout the entire campaign. Isn't a presidential campaign about convincing Americans to vote for you? According to what I've heard, Dotard didn't want to pay for a presidential transition team. Because why pay for a transition when you haven't won yet (law requires every candidate running to be ready. Therefore every candidate who doesn't win will pay for a transition when they end up NOT transitioning). So why would Dotard be concerned about relations with Russia -- when that is something that comes AFTER winning the office? (if that is your excuse).

    ReplyDelete
  8. People charged with foreign policy in a campaign aren't supposed to talk to foreigners? They aren't allowed to have regular jobs (like CIA spy) and must volunteer 100 percent of their time to the campaign? Who knew?

    btw - Did you quit your day job for Bernie?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Foreign policy teams can't begin to formulate policies until the transition period? Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  10. btw -Why did Obama give that Berlin speech in July of 2008? Was he colluding with Angela Merkel and the Germans?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Did he have Senatorial responsibilities? If so, why didn't he quit his day job to run? lol!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dotard was "formulating foreign policy" throughout his entire campaign. btw, if that was what he was doing, why be so secretive about it? If it's totally normal it can be done out in the open. As opposed to secret meetings and back channels (aka you're full of shit).

    btw, is building a Dotard tower in Russia (and offering Putin a suite in it) "foreign policy" or a personal business transaction that shouldn't be undertaken while running for US potus? Quote: "Trump launched his campaign for the presidency in June 2015. Multiple sources have reported that Trump signed a letter of intent to develop the building, provisionally named Trump World Tower Moscow, in October 2015".

    Dotard: "I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals in Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia -- because we've stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia".

    If dealings with Russia (talking to Russians) was fine (according to you), why such a definitive denial? ALL LIES. Obviously he has loans with Russia. Why he continues to fight to keep his financial information secret.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why he continues to fight to keep his financial information secret.

    In case you've never heard, the private sector is COMPETITIVE. Why did the Mason's maintain secrecy?

    ReplyDelete
  14. In case you've never heard, the presidency isn't a private sector job. Also, doing both (at the same time) is a conflict of interest. Why past presidents divested. Sold their businesses (it they had one) and put their money in blind trusts. The American people should have confidence that their president is working in the nation's interest -- instead of his own.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Running for the presidency is a public sector job? How much does it pay? Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Running for president can make you rich (or richer). That is why Dotard did it. He didn't think he was going to win.

    Anyway, if running for president isn't a public sector job -- and therefore it was just fine for Dotard to continue making deals during the campaign (including with Russia) -- why did he (so emphatically) lie about the Dotard tower deal?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Did Dotard lie? Yes. Did Dotard's betrayal of the Kurds have anything to do with his towers in Istanbul? Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks to Trump, the Kurds control 75% of Syria's oil. THAT is negotiating leverage.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Business Insider article you linked to points out Dotard's lies. It doesn't say anything about the Kurds controlling oil fields. The fields are in Syria. The Syrian government controls them.

    Quote: The House's version of the 2021 defense authorization bill, released this weekend, would require the defense secretary to certify that no US "military forces are being used or have been used for the extraction, transport, transfer or sale of oil from Syria". [end quote]

    Sounds good to me. Why should we be assisting the Syrian government bring their oil to market?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Syrian government controls the oil fields? Then why do we still have troops in Syria and why would this headline exist?

    ReplyDelete
  21. As far as I can tell the headline you link to doesn't exist. I see the following when I click it...

    Proxy Error
    The proxy server could not handle the request GET /pulse/originals/2020/06/democrats-stymie-trump-syria-oil-mission-kurds-congress.html.

    If the Syrian government doesn't control oil fields located in Syria -- why would that mean the Kurds do? Dotard withdrew our troops and the Syrian military went in and drove them out/slaughtered them. You think they somehow benefited from this?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Intel: Democrats try to stymie Trump’s 'secure the oil' mission in Syria

    Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/06/democrats-stymie-trump-syria-oil-mission-kurds-congress.html#ixzz6SwgKeLNn

    Jun 29, 2020

    Democrats are turning up the heat on President Donald Trump’s “secure the oil” mission in northeast Syria.

    The House’s version of the 2021 defense authorization bill, released this weekend, would require the defense secretary to certify that no US “military forces are being used or have been used for the extraction, transport, transfer or sale of oil from Syria.”

    “The committee remains concerned that the United States strategy for Syria expresses objectives that cannot be achieved with the means identified,” a report accompanying the bill states. “Furthermore, the committee is concerned about the stated purpose of US military forces serving in Syria and tasks assigned to those forces,” the report adds.

    The legislation also directs Defense Secretary Mark Esper to brief Congress by October...


    as for your second question

    US troops 'secure' northeast Syria oil, as contamination from it imperils lives

    Dilapidated pipelines and oil waste coat polluted rivers and streams in Kurdish-run northeast Syria.

    Read more: https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/06/northeast-syria-oil-pollution-kurds-refineries.html#ixzz6Swgnlqdj


    Jun 30, 2020

    The Kurds of northeast Syria shot to global renown for their valiance against the Islamic State (IS). But today, they face a scourge that is potentially even more devastating, putting the lives of millions of local residents at risk: oil pollution.

    Across the Kurdish-administered region, which is home to some 4 million people and sits on most of Syria’s contested oil, crude oil leaking from dilapidated pipelines and carcinogenic oil waste are contaminating rivers and streams. When the rivers flood, as they did most recently in April, they spread their poison over agricultural crops, just as thousands of rudimentary refineries belch their own toxic fumes into the air.

    Dystopian images of scorched earth and blackened water have failed to make an impact. Sporadic protests have resulted in makeshift refineries being shut down, only for them to pop up elsewhere.

    In telephone interviews with Al-Monitor...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Erdoğan must be really angry if Dotard has instructed US troops to secure oil fields FOR the Kurds. If Dotard loves the Kurds so much why did he order a US troop withdraw that resulted in Kurds having to flee to avoid being killed?

    ReplyDelete
  24. To seize the oil. If you need to choose to find a ground from which to fight, choose an advantageous ground.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You're full of shit. Dotard allowed Erdoğan to murder our Kurdish allies in exchange for allowing him to keep the Turkey Dotard towers. There was no plan to help the Kurds by securing the oil for them. Except in your imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  26. lol! Then why is Congress passing laws preventing the Kurds from selling oil to the Syrians? It is a puzlement.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Democrats in the US House of Representatives have proposed a ban on spending the 2021 defense budget on the establishment by the US military of control over oil facilities in Syria and Iraq, according to the Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Funding Bill.

    "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or expended by the United States Government for a purpose as follows ... to exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq or Syria," the document released on Tuesday read.


    :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Right. I read that. Did you post it to prove you lied? Your quote doesn't mention preventing the Kurds selling the crude from any oil fields they control.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Do they control the fields independent of US forces? Wouldn't the new law force US forces to abandon the Syrian fields and relocate? Wouldn't the Kurds then lose control of the fields? lol!

    The law will make sure that the Kurds lose all Syrian oil revenues. Way to look out for the Kurds, America!

    ReplyDelete