Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Inaction and apathy among people with extreme views

roachboy · 12-15-2009, 11:31 AM

the first story

in the days just after the russian revolution there was a group of artist types called constructivists who argued that art as it had been understood was finished because, well, there had been a revolution and all. what would replace bourgeois art was making useful stuff for the masses, so industrial design say. the folk who had been part of this group (loosely used but whatever) who actually did abandon art making and start industrial design as their Thing for the most part disappeared into the history that most of us live in, the one that erases all traces of our passage. the ones who either kept doing art while saying that art was over we should all do industrial design remained more visible (for better or worse particularly once stalin showed up) as did the others who combined the two. this is the constructivist problem, the one that follows from moving away from being the people who say a certain thing should be done from a position that is not doing that thing and into the position of doing that thing.

the second story

one day in 1919 the more anarchist wing of the french socialist party decided that world revolution either had or soon would arrive in france and they were ready for it because they said lots of times in the form of tracts and other stuff we're ready for this and what being ready for this meant was that there would be a general strike, one of those moments where everyone everywhere withdrew their consent from the existing order by just doing it as a population. fuck you existing order we aren't doing this any more.
if the population simply stops co-operating with the existing order, it would follow that there's not much left in the way of an existing order since being an existing order presupposes that people who live in a particular place think they is one so they act as though there is one. and so there is one.
and if you think about it, power that is granted institutions exists because that power is granted to them. that the institutions come to be legally framed such that they can act as though this granting was a one-off and from there enforce their prerogatives with violence is another matter.
anyway, so it is theoretically possible that if everyone in a particular place decided to simply stop playing along all at once that this would constitute a revolutionary action because of the whole problem of the existing order not really existing from that point forward because people stop thinking and acting as though it does exist.
so one day in 1919 the anarchist-leaning wing of the french socialist party (which was at the time a hodge-podge of everything left) decided that on another day not long afterward there would be a general strike so they called a general strike then they went out that morning as if they would find a general strike except there wasn't one.
so much for that.

a sequel
other times there have been general strikes like hungary in 1956 and much of what i said above turned out to be true, the existing order stopped existing pretty quickly and people set up forms of direct-democratic goverance and things worked pretty well and everything was pretty exciting except that the soviets didn't find it funny to see a worker-driven revolution happening in a place that was supposed to already have had one so they sent alot of tanks in and rounded up alot of people. it was ugly. so much for that.

meanwhile back in the good ole us of a

here in the good ole us of a people in the main have no way of withdrawing consent and are every day inundated with the workings of a cultural machinery that would have you imagine the only alternatives worth considering are the ones that you can buy retail and so which already exist which must mean that the existing order can cater to all your consumer needs and since the ability to consume is political freedom or an expression of that it follows that it's a pretty difficult thing to imagine how you'd go about doing stuff that would result in a different social arrangement when you're quite sure from much of what you see that any different social arrangement should be available retail.

you can't withdraw consent by doing stuff like not voting because the way votes are counted only include the votes that are cast not the votes that aren't cast and you can't use blank ballots to protest the lack of meaningful choices because they won't be counted either so no matter what happens someone wins an election and the percentage is always an aspect of 100 and so no matter what happens the outcome appears to be legitimate and besides politics in america is like retail and so it doesn't really affect you.

you could say that dissent is also a form of retail that enables a particular demographic to console itself by dressing itself up intellectually in strange clothing. that way you can still enjoy your little slice of collapsing empire and imagine that you are advocating something different because the people you read about advocated in and so by identification, which is kinda the center of consumption really (it allows you to imagine that an elvis jacket lets you express your individuality).

collapsing empires do not seem real fertile places for revolt because your frame of reference is still knit into that of the existing order and so moves with it but as collapse happens something starts to feel funny and since you can't quite put your finger on what that is that now feels funny it is often the case that folk retreat even further into their routine, which enables them to maintain an illusion of stability in a sliding situation.

whether folk recognize that function of routine or not isn't obvious but one thing that's as clear as a general strike is that you can read off motivations of anxiety and denial in that retreat if you are so inclined to do such things.

but periods during which people are retreating into their routines and trying real hard not to look because there are scary bad things happening that may in the abstract disrupt the cycle of buying things and the democracy for which that stands are not real fertile times for radical social change on a grand scale.

but everywhere if you look people are experimenting with new things often on a small scale that you could see as basic critiques of this sad old imperial order that is sliding into beigeness and irrelevance in slow-motion all around us.

so i don't know what the op is talking about.

12-15-2009, 11:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the first story in the days just after the russian revolution there was a group of artist types called constructivists who argued that art as it had been understood was finished because, well, there had been a revolution and all. what would replace bourgeois art was making useful stuff for the masses, so industrial design say. the folk who had been part of this group (loosely used but whatever) who actually did abandon art making and start industrial design as their Thing for the most part disappeared into the history that most of us live in, the one that erases all traces of our passage. the ones who either kept doing art while saying that art was over we should all do industrial design remained more visible (for better or worse particularly once stalin showed up) as did the others who combined the two. this is the constructivist problem, the one that follows from moving away from being the people who say a certain thing should be done from a position that is not doing that thing and into the position of doing that thing. the second story one day in 1919 the more anarchist wing of the french socialist party decided that world revolution either had or soon would arrive in france and they were ready for it because they said lots of times in the form of tracts and other stuff we're ready for this and what being ready for this meant was that there would be a general strike, one of those moments where everyone everywhere withdrew their consent from the existing order by just doing it as a population. fuck you existing order we aren't doing this any more. if the population simply stops co-operating with the existing order, it would follow that there's not much left in the way of an existing order since being an existing order presupposes that people who live in a particular place think they is one so they act as though there is one. and so there is one. and if you think about it, power that is granted institutions exists because that power is granted to them. that the institutions come to be legally framed such that they can act as though this granting was a one-off and from there enforce their prerogatives with violence is another matter. anyway, so it is theoretically possible that if everyone in a particular place decided to simply stop playing along all at once that this would constitute a revolutionary action because of the whole problem of the existing order not really existing from that point forward because people stop thinking and acting as though it does exist. so one day in 1919 the anarchist-leaning wing of the french socialist party (which was at the time a hodge-podge of everything left) decided that on another day not long afterward there would be a general strike so they called a general strike then they went out that morning as if they would find a general strike except there wasn't one. so much for that. a sequel other times there have been general strikes like hungary in 1956 and much of what i said above turned out to be true, the existing order stopped existing pretty quickly and people set up forms of direct-democratic goverance and things worked pretty well and everything was pretty exciting except that the soviets didn't find it funny to see a worker-driven revolution happening in a place that was supposed to already have had one so they sent alot of tanks in and rounded up alot of people. it was ugly. so much for that. meanwhile back in the good ole us of a here in the good ole us of a people in the main have no way of withdrawing consent and are every day inundated with the workings of a cultural machinery that would have you imagine the only alternatives worth considering are the ones that you can buy retail and so which already exist which must mean that the existing order can cater to all your consumer needs and since the ability to consume is political freedom or an expression of that it follows that it's a pretty difficult thing to imagine how you'd go about doing stuff that would result in a different social arrangement when you're quite sure from much of what you see that any different social arrangement should be available retail. you can't withdraw consent by doing stuff like not voting because the way votes are counted only include the votes that are cast not the votes that aren't cast and you can't use blank ballots to protest the lack of meaningful choices because they won't be counted either so no matter what happens someone wins an election and the percentage is always an aspect of 100 and so no matter what happens the outcome appears to be legitimate and besides politics in america is like retail and so it doesn't really affect you. you could say that dissent is also a form of retail that enables a particular demographic to console itself by dressing itself up intellectually in strange clothing. that way you can still enjoy your little slice of collapsing empire and imagine that you are advocating something different because the people you read about advocated in and so by identification, which is kinda the center of consumption really (it allows you to imagine that an elvis jacket lets you express your individuality). collapsing empires do not seem real fertile places for revolt because your frame of reference is still knit into that of the existing order and so moves with it but as collapse happens something starts to feel funny and since you can't quite put your finger on what that is that now feels funny it is often the case that folk retreat even further into their routine, which enables them to maintain an illusion of stability in a sliding situation. whether folk recognize that function of routine or not isn't obvious but one thing that's as clear as a general strike is that you can read off motivations of anxiety and denial in that retreat if you are so inclined to do such things. but periods during which people are retreating into their routines and trying real hard not to look because there are scary bad things happening that may in the abstract disrupt the cycle of buying things and the democracy for which that stands are not real fertile times for radical social change on a grand scale. but everywhere if you look people are experimenting with new things often on a small scale that you could see as basic critiques of this sad old imperial order that is sliding into beigeness and irrelevance in slow-motion all around us. so i don't know what the op is talking about. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-15-2009 at 11:35 AM..