The Situation is Excellent

Another world is possible, anything can happen.  I have never been clear on what leftist sloganeers mean here.  Are these phrases meant to be taken as a regulative ideal, something to only hope for, things to be believed in without actually expecting them to be realized in any significant worldly way?  Or are they meant to be literally true, that the world can be completely changed?

Now we’ve been given evidence that these maxims are literally true; even the Trump campaign and its supporters seemed surprised by their victory. We have also been given a sharp reminder that “anything” can include a slide into the abyss.  We can either fall into despair over this realization, or we can be emboldened by it.

To think that Trump’s election has sealed the fate of American democracy is madness; this worry depends upon the belief that the future is necessarily tied to what we can see in the present.  It is the same kind of thinking that blinded all of us, possibly even Trump himself, to the possibility of a Trump victory.  We do not know what will happen.  His victory could be a step on the road to a farcical, cheeto-faced return of fascism, but it could be a step on the road to a brighter future.  

Let’s acknowledge the dangers first and go back to Richard Rorty in 1998:

“Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. . . .

“One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.”

How much of this is coming to fruition?  Is it possible that Trump’s movement threatens to overturn constitutional government?  In any other situation, the claim would be absurd.  The American-backed global establishment is one of the most stable and powerful network of institutions the world has ever seen.  Consider the fact that this network is capable of fielding multiple nuclear aircraft carriers: the level of cooperation between interests and long-term expropriation of resources required to do this is historically unprecedented and implies an unprecedented level of stability. This has largely included stable constitutional governments (we do not know if Pinochet and present-day China are quirks of history, or images of the future). Anything can happen.  Another world is possible.  We have to accept that constitutional government may in fact be in play, for good or for ill.  

By any standard metric, Rorty’s final paragraph is much more likely.  We have to face the fact that the alt-right actually is a thing.  The broad leftist coalition that has made so many cultural gains, the most obvious being support for gay marriage, may not be as stable as we thought.  Social conservatives in North America have always had to deal with a split within their ranks: there are average, everyday conservatives that are just as horrified by the n-word as the rest of us, and then there are the conservatives that resent not being able to use words like faggot and nigger.  Is this split being healed?  And if that split is healed, will the liberal inertia be arrested, or even turned back?  Anything is possible.

There are some favourable possibilities that are closer to hand than others.  Primarily, there is Trump’s promise to battle globalized free trade and bring manufacturing jobs back to America.  There are two sides to this, broadly.  

A) We all know the devastating effects of globalized free trade: millions living in shanty towns, mass migration, imperial wars.  Even if we accept the economic rationale behind capitalized open borders (free flow of capital, but not labor), that it will ultimately create more jobs and contain China, we still must take responsibility for its immediate effects and decide if it is worth it.  Some people have clearly already made this choice, and the only people offering it were Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.  

 We should not underestimate the dangers of this revolt against capitalized open borders in favour of protectionist isolationism.  First, it may cripple western constitutional governments from being able to oppose the rise of the authoritarian influences of Russia and China.  Second, it is a right-wing, self-serving, inward-looking revolt (Which may ultimately may come to nothing.  Brexit may be blocked by the legislature, and Trump may discover that NAFTA cannot be erased through executive order).   While the current situation restricts the movement of labour, it is open to the movement of refugees, those masses who have lost the right to have rights.

But anything can happen.  A more isolationist policy for western countries may stymie the march towards capitalized open borders (free flow of capital, but not people).  We may witness the resurgence and consolidation of local economies, which could allow for developing countries to get out from under the heel of the WTO, the IMF, and the harsher elements of the EU.

B) The second side is the apparent impossibility of returning manufacturing jobs to post-industrial nations.  The coming reign of automation militates against this; if tariffs manage to force companies to return to America, then the next obvious step is complete automation of those factories.  Nothing will be gained except the consolidation of a group of yet another group of people who have all the proof they need that there is no place for them in the world.  

The left needs to be ready for both sides, and it will require a mix of local and scalable, institutional-level responses.  In order to build this response, in order to fully acknowledge that we now know anything is possible, the left needs to accept a kernel of a-historical thinking.  The history of an object is not an absolute guide to its present, and its present is not an absolute guide to its future.  There is always an a-historical kernel of possibility in every situation.  Many already accept this, to some degree – but somehow, it does not guard against accepting Trump related despair.  The same contingency that works against us can work for us; it is simply the blind, unguided contingency of all things.  I do not say this to suggest that only a contingent god can save us; we ought to have done with that despairing finitude.  The world is not a series of stages that inevitably follow from one another, to be broken only by some “outside.”  As Hegel tells us, not even the natural world does this: “The old saying, or so-called law, [Nature does not leap], is altogether inadequate to the diremption of the Notion.  The continuity of the Notion with itself is of an entirely different character.”  (Philosophy of Nature, 22)  The Notion, that bundle of relations between universals and particulars, is not a robotic march of history.

Now is the time to dream, to stop worrying about what is “possible.”  We need to imagine a world in which stable local economies interact with a multitude of other stable local economies: a global economy regulated not by corporations but by the people.  A world in which actual human beings take responsibility for the workings of the apparently invincible networks we all find ourselves thrown into.  A world in which the experimentation with authoritarian capitalism is arrested.  

Max Horkheimer’s “The Social Role of Philosophy” concludes with this paragraph:

“We cannot say that, in the history of philosophy, the thinkers who had the most progressive effect were those who found most to criticize or who were always on hand with so-called practical programs. Things are not that simple. A philosophical doctrine has many sides, and each side may have the most diverse historical effects. Only in exceptional historical periods, such as the French Enlightenment, does philosophy itself become politics. In that period, the word philosophy did not call to mind logic and epistemology so much as attacks on the Church hierarchy and on an inhuman judicial system. The removal of certain preconceptions was virtually equivalent to opening the gates of the new world. Tradition and faith were two of the most powerful bulwarks of the old regime, and the philosophical attacks constituted an immediate historical action. Today, however, it is not a matter of eliminating a creed, for in the totalitarian states, where the noisiest appeal is made to heroism and a lofty Weltanschauung, neither faith nor Weltanshauung rule, but only dull indifference and the apathy of the individual towards destiny and to what comes from above. Today our task is rather to ensure that, in the future, the capacity for theory and for action which derives from theory will never again disappear, even in some coming period of peace when the daily routine may tend to allow the whole problem to be forgotten once more. Our task is continually to struggle, lest mankind become completely disheartened by the frightful happenings of the present, lest man’s belief in a worthy, peaceful and happy direction of society perish from the earth.”

I think it is clear that in our world, the “dull indifference and the apathy of the individual towards destiny and to what comes from above” has become, or at least threatens to become, a creed.  The turnout to the American election was dismal; the campaign against Brexit was anemic.  Anarchists such as Simon Critchley think all we can do is slip into the interstices of the state; non-anarchist leftists have retreated into a “survival until revolution” ethos, and the right can only await a strong man to save them.  We have not even risen to the level of having “so-called practical programs,” because all we can offer is a mixture of moral hectoring and localized stop-gap measures.  But: another world is possible, anything can happen.  The world can leap.  The frightful happenings of the present do not tell us what the future is.


A Left of the Thing-in-Itself

This is not a reading for any upcoming meeting; we discussed it a year ago and I did not get around to posting it until now.

The editor’s introduction to The Science of Logic draws a line from Kant through Fichte to Hegel.  The guiding issue is the constraint placed on mental activity; does it arise from the thing-in-itself, or from the freedom of the cogito?  Fichte pushed Kant in the direction of an absolute freedom, but did so at the cause of grounding that freedom in a fundamental mystery.  Hegel’s project, as this editor has it, was to make that freedom non-mysterious and fully conceptualized.  I have also tacked on a political side note.

Continue reading

The Emergence of Correlational Forms

We know there was a time when no form of subjectivity existed, and we know there was a subsequent time in which subjectivity did exist.  The question is, how can we describe the gap between these two times?  How, and on what basis, can we think the time of the emergence of subjectivity?  The Scylla any answer to this question faces is that any description of pre-subjective time is always thought from within subjectivity, or from within what I will call a correlational form. This problem would indict any such description as either dogmatically metaphysical or as a performative contradiction (i.e. to think where one is not).  The Charybdis is the possibility of a positivist neurological or eliminative reductionism, in which subjectivity is eliminated altogether.  With the elimination of subjectivity comes the elimination of phenomenal appearance and any kind of normative structure, which would produce its own form of performative contradiction (i.e. to insist on the truth of eliminativism after having eliminated truth and falsity).

In order to think the time of the emergence of correlational forms, we have the necessities to think where one is not and to maintain a distinction between truth and falsity.  The project is an attempt to describe a correlational form that can fulfill both requirements.

Continue reading

What is It To Live?

This is the reading for June 2nd. We will meet in Itaewon at Bless U at 4:00.

“Several times in its brief existence, every human animal is granted the chance to incorporate itself into the subjective present of a truth.  The grace of living for an Idea, that is of living as such, is accorded to everyone and for several types of procedures.”

“I am sometimes told that I see in philosophy only a means to reestablish, against the contemporary apologia of the futile and the everyday, the rights of heroism.  Why not?  Having said that, ancient heroism claimed to justify life through sacrifice.  My wish is to make heroism exist through the alternative joy which is universally generated by following consequences through.  We could say that the epic heroism of the one who gives his life is supplanted by the mathematical heroism of the one who creates life, point by point.”

– Logics of Worlds, pg 514

The above quotes nutshell Alain Badiou’s answer to the question of the good life.  His project is the re-assertion of truths against the enforced banality of everyday life.  Over the next few meetings, we’ll be discussing the themes in these passages.  Today, we will look at Badiou’s concept of living for a truth, as compared to average everydayness.

Continue reading