A different kind of Marxist

 

To be a Leninist today is to be an anachronism. So why Marxism? What even is Marxism?

To be a Marxist today is to recognize the structural violence of the global economic system and to want to change it. The problem, however, is the same is in our time as it was in Vladimir Lenin’s time- What is to be Done?

Many today are fed up with the democratic system, and believe it can never deliver the promises of a better society. They believe that without changing the fundamentals of the economic system, our society will perpetuate inequality and violence. It is tempting therefore to view the entire concept of democracy itself as suspect, a bourgeois ideal, and nothing more.

It is this Marxian orthodoxy of the 19th century that we should reject, along with the concept of the dictatorship of the proleteriat. We must own up to the fact that the legacy of 20th century communism was one of abject failure.

The pundits on Fox News like to say the “Left” are dictator apologists, from Nicolas Maduro to King Jong Un, while forgetting to mention that the US currently backs dictatorial regimes and war criminals around the world such as the Saudi kingdom and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines. It is tempting to go the route of “naive realpolitik” and believe, like Henry Kissinger does, that democracy is just a word, and believe that the ideal of democracy is in practice unattainable, because the majority of society can decide to democratically oppress the minority, as was the case in Hitler’s Germany.

Therefore, I have to argue against some of the claims made by Zizek himself in his book Did Someone Say Totalitarianism? Zizek is admirable for pointing out the hypocrisy of the West, particularly America, in claiming to support freedom and democracy, while maintaining always that 20th century communism was a miserable failure. However, in this book, he makes to many concessions to actually-existing socialism, such as the argument that the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe lived a decent life except for lack of political freedom, etc. Of course I am somewhat oversimplifying his argument here, but I find it strange that Zizek seems to oscillate between outright defense of the Soviet Union and Maoist China and complete and total anti-Stalinism. This article he wrote on Tibet illustrates what is wrong with his conception of the reality under actually-existing socialism:

http://zizek.uk/tibet-dream-and-reality/

In this article, Zizek repeats the old adage that Tibet was a feudal economy probably better off under China anyway, and that most of the violence that occurred in Tibet derived from Tibetans themselves. This falls in line with his narrative that one should stay away from Orientalism and “dreams of utopia” if we want to get closer to the truth.

The reality is much more complicated. This empirically false statement exemplifies what is wrong with Zizek’s critique:

“The Cultural Revolution which ravaged the Tibetan monasteries in the 1960s was not imported by the Chinese. Fewer than a hundred of the Red Guards came to Tibet with the revolution, and the young mobs burning the monasteries were almost exclusively Tibetan”.

It is sad to see Zizek himself fall to such obvious Maoist propaganda, when he see is so deft in seeing through Stalinist propaganda. Elsewhere, Zizek is critical of Mao Zedong, and believes its problematic to view “Eastern communism” or “Latin American communism” or Third World communism in general in a kind of fetishized way. Therefore, it is doubly surprising he didn’t fact-check this story, also given his consistent critiques of the Khmer Rouge, another Communist regime that oppressed and committed genocide against a majority Buddhist populous.

The reality is, as actual scholars of Tibetan history have pointed out time and again, that most of the monasteries were destroyed directly by the PLA during the initial invasion, as demonstrated by forensic evidence from the mass graves. It is here worth quoting Tsering Shakya, author of “Blood in the Snows”, at length for the actual historical evidence:

Wang’s assertion that most of the destruction in Tibet took place during the Cultural Revolution also fails to tally with the historical record. As he himself admits, the monasteries and temples had been emptied long before, and ‘the PLA had bombed them as it re-established control’ after the 1959 Rebellion. In fact, the destruction of religious sites in Eastern Tibet—outside the TAR—had begun in 1956, under the guise of suppressing local uprisings in Gansu, Qinghai, Yunnan and Sichuan. In May 1962, the Panchen Rinpoche submitted a long memorandum to the Party Central Committee, detailing the terrible failures of Chinese government policies throughout the entire Tibetan region. Two passages prove categorically that much of Tibet’s cultural heritage had already been destroyed. The Panchen Rinpoche writes:

Our Han cadres produced a plan, our Tibetan cadres mobilized, and some people among the activists who did not understand reason played the part of executors of the plan. They usurped the name of the masses, they put on the mask [mianju] of the masses, and stirred up a great flood of waves to eliminate statues of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas [reliquaries]. They burned countless statues of the Buddha, scriptures and stupas, threw them into the water, threw them onto the ground, broke them and melted them. Recklessly, they carried out a wild and hasty [fengxiang chuangru] destruction of monasteries, halls, ‘mani’ walls and stupas, and stole many ornaments from the statues and precious things from the stupas.

Referring only to the area within the boundaries of the TAR when he speaks of ‘Tibet’—the situation was probably worse in other Tibetan districts—the Panchen Rinpoche goes on:

Before democratic reform, there were more than 2,500 large, medium and small monasteries in Tibet. After democratic reform, only 70 or so monasteries were kept in existence by the government. This was a reduction of more than 97 per cent. Because there were no people living in most of the monasteries, there was no-one to look after their Great Prayer Halls [da jing tang] and other divine halls, or the lodgings of the monks. There was great damage and destruction, both by man and otherwise, and they were reduced to the point of collapse, or beyond. [2]

This memorandum to the Central Committee was written four years before the Cultural Revolution.

There is no need to resort to the kind of cheap psychological analysis Wang adduces to explain why Tibetans turned against the sacred symbols of their religion during the Cultural Revolution. The real reasons are far more straightforward. One of these lay in the Party’s need to restrict the inter-factional struggle in an area which, as we have seen, was highly sensitive militarily. As soon as things looked like getting out of hand the Central Committee issued an order that, in these zones, the struggle should not be formulated as a fight between the ‘two lines’. Such conflict was thus essentially confined to the towns, especially Lhasa. The result was that, in most rural areas of Tibet, the ferocity of the Cultural Revolution was shifted away from the battle between the two factions and directed instead towards an attack on tradition, under the call to smash ‘The Four Olds’. In this effort, no stone was left unturned. The Red Guards may not have entered far into the countryside but CCP rule penetrated every crevice of the vast Himalayan landscape. The Party’s hegemony was so deeply entrenched at this time that even the way a peasant slept was said to indicate ideological orientation—someone who lay with their head towards the west was accused of turning away from Chairman Mao, since he was ‘the Sun that rises in the East’. One of the crimes of which the Panchen Rinpoche was accused during his trial by Red Guards in Beijing was of having anti-Party and reactionary dreams. (The Red Guards here, it should be noted, were not Tibetans but Chinese students.)

 

It is Zizek who here demonstrates his own implicit bias against traditional societies, believing the only thing about Tibetan society that is true was that it was a virtual hell on Earth. This is obviously a different kind of Orientalism, but Zizek, in his infinite wisdom about how we should dispel all illusions, has obviously never talked with an actual survivor of the Tibetan diaspora, or talked with actual Tibetan scholars.

It is inconceivable to him that the Dalai Lama legitimately inspires people around the world, or that Buddhist spirituality is deeply felt by believers and native Tibetans. He can only conceive of it in gross orthodox Marxist sense of “false consciousness”.

So the question continues to be, still, why Marxism?

If Marxism can embrace a truly non-violent spirit, and forget its ideology of “the ends justifying the means”, then maybe true structural violence can be eliminated in a peaceful way. Given Zizek’s embrace of redefining Marxism, revolution, and old Marxist lexicon, it is surprising and painful that he does not apply the same standard to Maoist China. 20th century communism failed to protect ethnic minorities, failed to protect political freedom, and in general failed to deliver to the utopia of equality it promised. If we are to change our economic system for the betterment of humanity, we must not allow demagogues and strongmen to lead us down the road of repressive regimes like the USSR, North Korea, and China, where currently they have almost abandoned any pretense of creating economic equality. I continue to argue Tibet is the theoretical cornerstone of realizing the problem with 20th century Communism.

 

Advertisements

Great video “The Libertarian to Alt-Right Pipeline”

 

This video by “ScotchOikos” is very well done, goes through a lot of angles to the connections between the libertarian movement and the Alt-Right today. I’ve always had the opinion that libertarians are conservatives who are fine with weed. This video makes some strong arguments that the face of the libertarian movement has always had “dark precursors” with white identity politics and proto-fascist tendencies. He mentions Milton Friedman and his support for Pinochet- the only thing I would add is that Milton Friedman also was instrumental in Pinochet’s installment as dictator in Chile, as well as an economic adviser to the Pinochet regime. He mentions briefly something about Marxist dialectics, but I want to connect this discussion to the inherent connections between capitalism and imperialism, and the inherently racist connotations of imperialism or neocolonialism. American imperialism has an inherently supremacist character, and the doctrine of American supremacy is built on a foundation of white supremacy. Now, one of the most appealing aspects of the modern Libertarian Party is an “anti-imperialist”, or more properly, an isolationist foreign policy. However this isolationism, the Ron Paulian foreign policy, is not on moral grounds, but strictly on a pragmatic basis if you look at the arguments being employed, particularly when it comes to bankrupting the American state. Libertarians take the idea of Big Government seriously, and want a full scale recall of the welfare state and the American security state. However, as the video rightly points out, a principled libertarian is not an alt-righter, however there are certain tendencies in libertarianism that lend themselves for co-opting by the alt-right, or conservative reactionaries in general. The first of these principally is their stance on the welfare state, which relies on racist caricature and Reaganesque assumptions about “welfare queens”. I’ve personally heard these kind of arguments being made by a libertarian and former right-wing militia member- these connections are real.

Secondly, in terms of demographics, it is definitely true that most libertarians are white (although certain black and Asian bourgeois entrepreneurial types are being co-opted into the fold). I want to make this argument pretty clearly- capitalism, in its essential dynamics, as people like Cornel West and bell hooks have argued, are inherently connected to structural racism and patriarchy. There is a reason why the Republican Party today is anti-abortion and anti-minimum wage- they are systematically targeting the most vulnerable among us. It is reminds what Muhammad Ali said about the Vietnam War- the war is white people sending brown and red people to fight yellow people. The racial dynamics of capitalism are here factored into the division between the First and Third Worlds. Thus, a Maoist perspective is definitely necessary to accurately understand how these seemingly stable ideological universes coexist and mingle. I use Maoism here to signify Mao Zedong’s breakthroughs in Marxist theory, not an apology for all of his actions (see my posts on Tibet). However I do believe that to understand Capitalism today, one must understand the global division of wealth between rich and poor nations as a systematic extension of economic imperialism. This is how a person like Milton Friedman can be in principle in favor of free markets, but in practice in favor of US interference in the internal affairs, economic or otherwise, of a sovereign nation. Finally, it is sufficient to say that the formation of capitalism as an economic system is based in the African slave trade, as well as the colonial conquest of most of the world by European powers, establishing a one-world economy dominated by Western countries. The modern extension of this is therefore the IMF and World Bank, Western-controlled entities that ensure the exploitation of the poor countries by keeping them in a cycle of debt.

Going back to the video, I wish the creator had spent more time calling out specific ideologues like Dave Rubin, the “classical liberal” Trump apologist in chief on the internet, who just recently tried to co-opt Martin Luther King and erase his socialist beliefs and smear socialism using one line of the “I have a dream” speech- the usual tactic by conservatives, completely overplayed, but then again, his followers have already been brainwashed, so it must not take much effort on his part. So I’ll end, fittingly, with a reference to my favorite speech by Martin Luther King, the “Three Evils of Society” Speech. Those three evils he was referring to are Capitalism, Imperialism, and Racism, and yes, he uses those exact terms in his speech. MLK understood the inherent connection between these things, and in his prophetic way, was able to tie it together like this:

We cry out against welfare hand outs to the poor but generously approve an oil depletion allowance tomake the rich, richer…What they truly advocate is Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor…
King continues:
We must also realize that the problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power. We must further recognize that the ghetto is adomestic colony. Black people must develop programs that will aid in the transfer of power and wealth into thehands of residence of the ghetto so that they may in reality control their own destinies. This is the meaning of  New Politics. People of will in the larger community, must support the black man in this effort.”
King continues with a stinging critique of the Vietnam War and a call to end it entirely. King’s rhetoric is not completely Marxist in character, but he uses the people’s voice. He substitutes capitalism at times for materialism, but the call for redistribution is clear enough. Only a radical redistribution of political and economic power can save our world from the Three Evils. We must remember to never punch down, but to look into the corridors of power to see how ideological manipulation is being engineered, how discourses are manufactured, and then tear apart the machine of exploitation.
So tell a friend who is interested in Libetarianism- do you know anything about Milton Friedman and Pinochet? Let us combat catchy phrases and meme culture with rational argumentation and compassion for the plight of the suffering millions who continue to form the global working class- those who make our t-shirts in the sweatshops of Bangladesh and those who mine the minerals in our laptops in sub-Saharan Africa. Let’s move away from a politics of social media and “trending hashtags”, and lets get serious about the problems facing the world, and our complicity in an economic system that continues to be the source of problems for most of the worlds poor.

Against another Double Blackmail: Scientism and Primitivism (or Humanism and Anti-humanism)

I have just bought a copy of Slavoj Zizek’s book Disparities, a philosophical tour-de-force that would be considered anyone’s magnum opus were it not Zizek’s 50th or so book. Here Zizek outlines his concept of disparity and comments upon (and differentiates himself from) other philosophical opinions, or in Zizekian terms, recognizes the fundamental disparities between his vision, grounded in dialectical thought and the Hegelian tradition, and the positions of other philosophers. Here he sets up a fundamental opposition, one which runs through the book, between his view and the ontological position of Gilles Deleuze, namely opposing his views on rhizomes and the univocity of being (while still giving credit where credit is due). However that theoretical disagreement is not the aim of my article: my aim is to elaborate on my thoughts inspired by the first chapter of Disparities, called “From human to posthuman…and back to inhuman: the persistence of ontological difference”. In this chapter Zizek addresses and categorizes multiple types of “posthumanisms”, from transhumanism to structuralist anti-humanism. Interestingly, he also categorizes the “Gaia hypothesis” deep ecology view as another anti-humanism, in which humans are seen as a virus on the planet which in its hubris, destroyed the environment. Zizek sees transhumanism (which, briefly, is the theory popularized by Ray Kurzweil in which man will gradually merge with the technological machine and transcend the meek and mortal human) as a kind of reemergence of Soviet biocosmism, an ideology popular in the USSR in which the human being would be gradually overcome in the new Communist utopia.

Before I go on, it is interesting how both of these ideologies (and they are properly ideologies, because they rely on a fantastical element) are dependent on a utopian view of society, as either being saved by technology, or saved by Nature. Therefore, it is natural to oppose these utopian views of society, which have as their forbears the scientific rationalism of the Enlightenment and Rousseauian concepts of human nature, with the properly Marxist or dialectical answer: that technology is simply a tool utilized by humans in a particular historical and economico-productive context. However, we must go further than Marx here. Technology is neither the alienating object which separates man from his true nature, as in the early Marx, or the means by which to propel man into the Communist utopia, as in the Communist Manifesto of middle period Marx. It is rather, that technology is just one of the means of production, or the means of reproducing society, and is as such neutral, a product and reflection of the social organization. Thus, the material base of society itself must be transformed along with the social organization of society if society is to be truly revolutionized. And, a proper Marxist would recognize that the material base of society does not propel society along as its single causal determinant, and that ideology is also a fundamental determinant, with superstructure and infrastructure intertwined and mutually dependent. Therefore, technology should neither be demonized nor fetishized, because demonization is another form of fetishization which misses the fact that all material goods are the product of labor, human labor to be precise.

However, from the Grundrisse, we can say that Marx toyed with the idea of technology itself doing the dominating. But this is only by design of the capitalist- yes, the machines handled by the factory workers are inherently dangerous, but we should not seek salvation in automation, thereby rendering human labor useless. Rather, we should seek to balance automation with a humane labor policy, enforced strictly by the revolutionary state. It is in this way that fetishizing nature, and lifestylist primitivism, can only do a disservice not only to the cause of Labor, which must by necessity deal with technology for its livelihood, but also the cause of indigenous and tribal people, who do not have to by choice.

However, if forced to pick one of these two poles of the false dichotomy, primitivism and technological transhumanism, I would much prefer primitivism, because at least that goes against the grain of technological capitalism and its commodity fetishism. Zizek has revealed how there are also new forms of ecological fetishism, but it is true that industrialization itself, as Marx recognized, produces new horrors, reductions in standards of living that not only class society entails. The factory itself oppresses not just because of machines which wear down the body, but also the polluted air, the lack of available farm labor, the appropriation of the land by business. Land reform may work in an already agricultural society, but in a society driven by technology, is it possible, or even good policy, to enact a redistribution of land, to agriculturalize an essentially industrial and post-industrial workforce? No, I don’t believe this will work culturally as well as bureaucratically. However, we do need to take the ecological crisis seriously, and seriously think about reorganizing our food production system so that not only the health of the consumer is emphasized, but the health of the producer and the health of the environment is as well (and throw on top of that the health of livestock, to please the animal rights activists and vegans).

To add another sufficiently Zizekian or Hegelian dialectical reversal (one I’m sure Zizek has already said)- transhumanism is not sufficiently anti-human enough, not only because it does not recognize the fundamental antagonisms within the human itself (the inhuman in the human, as Zizek says), but it also posits technology as an inherently moral good. To this we can ascribe this law of human historical development: technological progress does not equate to moral progress, and neither does moral progress equate to technological regress. This is because there are too many other complicating factors. However, as an anthropologist, I will make one more caveat: primitive tribal societies did just fine without modern technology, but that was not the only source of their relative abundance and happiness. It was also the egalitarian nature of their societies, societies which were almost eliminated by the development of class-society and the State, which emerged at the same time. Paradoxically, however, this does not mean we should eschew the state or technology, because neither are fundamentally sources of oppression, only with their coupling and emergence from stratified society. Thus, we should reimagine the State, transform it, just as we should reimagine and transform technology to suit human necessity, and not just the necessity of the elite.

The implications of Obama’s immigration policies for socialist strategy

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hard-truths-about-obamas-deportation-priorities_us_58b3c9e7e4b0658fc20f979e

Above, I’ve linked to the article I will be talking about today. I am very encouraged to see this level of journalism coming out of the Huffington Post, although the contributor to the magazine is, somewhat unsurprisingly, an academic, namely a professor of history at Lewis and Clark college. The article reveals what I have been saying over and over- that the oft-quoted statistic that Obama deported “90% criminals” is a flat-out falsehood when you consider the fact that according to ICE and Department of Homeland Security statistics (their own statistics!) only in 2016 were 90% of interior deportations of those with a criminal record. This doesn’t count deportations at the border at all. As the article reveals, this also obscures what kinds of crimes were committed. Only 19% of 2014 deportations were of people with “violent or potentially violent” convictions. That is an appalling statistic. The war on immigrants has been going long before Trump.

Many people now know or at least have to acknowledge the record amount of deportations Obama made during his presidency, but they then try to obfuscate that fact with misleading statistics and the argument that Obama tried to “concentrate on deporting felons”. The fact is the majority of those deported who had criminal convictions were not felons, but the crimes committed had something to do with immigration violations. As always, the Obama administration is being disingenuous and actively fooling people into thinking they are humane and care about human rights. This is the case when it comes to drone strikes (which I did an entire statistical project on, and the amount of civilian casualties under the Obama administration that are recorded is a shocking statistic, but that’s another story).

We must, as Cornel West continues to vigorously and courageously argue, oppose the Obama administration’s narrative that they were allies and protectors of people of color. When it comes to immigrants, yes Obama did pass the DAPA and DACA exemptions, but their record when it comes to immigration and deportation is clear. When it comes to the record on indigenous rights, on the rights of Native Americans, we know what Obama did with the Keystone and DAPL pipelines (until the very last minute when it could be overturned by Trump). We know what Obama’s record overseas was, a continued policy of more and more war, a continuation of Bush era foreign policy with a “human face”. Obama is the black face of American Empire. Last but no least, Obama’s progress when it comes to the prison-industrial complex, private prisons, and mass incarceration (and police brutality!) was minimal. As always, the definition of liberal Obama-era policies are HALF MEASURES.

It’s time to put an end to half-measures. It’s time to stop defending Obamacare, instead view it in light of what other countries actually have. It’s time to never vote for a neoliberal centrist Democrat ever again, in the primary OR in the general election. The time is NOW to send a message to Washington, enough with the corporatism, and enough with establishment politics. And its also time to put a name to what we want- democratic socialism. Yes, socialism, that dreaded word. Not Stalinism, but actual policies that redistribute wealth and put an end to American imperialist foreign policy. This intersection between economic and foreign policy is why immigration policy is so important, because illegal immigration is impacted primarily by the existence of horrible free trade policies like NAFTA which deregulates the market and floods foreign markets with cheap American goods, destabilizing Latin American economies and causing mass immigration crises. The immigration crisis in Europe is caused primarily by American empire in terms of our Middle East policy, a legacy of the Iraq War, and the immigration crisis here at home is primarily caused by Clinton era neoliberalism. This is a stark reality if you think about it, that many major problems in the world can be traced to American imperialism, but it makes sense when you look at the legacy of America in Guatemala, in Iran, in Indonesia, indeed everywhere. The legacy of the 20th century, the latter half of it, is the moral failure of American capitalism to deliver the promise of human rights, and it has continued to fail in the 21st century, and the “Hope and Change” promised by the Obama administration, something I sincerely wished for as a young 18 year old first time voter, failed to materialize. I was fooled by the smile of a politician once- never will I be fooled again. I am a proud socialist, and my heart belongs to the international movement of workers and people of all stripes against capitalist imperialist hegemony.

 

Capitalism and Schizophrenia: a book for our century

THE text, the seminal text, written about our society, industrial and digital society, modern society, especially American society, in the 20th century, is not the Postmodern Condition. It is not Dialectic of Enlightenment. It is not even One Dimensional Man, or Empire by Antonio Negri. The seminal text, the Das Kapital of the 20th century, is not Civilization and its Discontents. That is THE text to be opposed. It is Capitalism and Schizophrenia by French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. Philosopher Michel Foucault agreed, “the 21st century will be the Deleuzian century”.

In an era of mass incarceration, of mass shootings, of one day of depressing news after another with no end in sight, why do we need to read a book written by an eccentric French philosopher with unkempt hair? Why not, as Marxists argue, should we not continue to comb the archives of a communism that failed? Why not Lenin? Well, we should read Lenin. We should read everything else I mentioned as well, and not be exclusive. Because at the heart, Deleuze is the philosopher of addition, not of subtraction or opposition, which is the dialectical logic. Are “dialectics” (whatever that means) still useful? They are one tool in our arsenal, our assault against the forces of oppression, which has begun to tear away at the fabric of social reality itself, and has begun to convince people that their servitude is their only chance at freedom. Deleuze offers us a theory for thinking the Whole, for rethinking what Being itself is, that offers us also a pragmatics of the possible.

Those who scoff at the idea of revolution will always tell you- “the banks are too big to fail”, “not in my lifetime will that happen”. They have accepted life as it is- for how can they not? They don’t want to live a dreamlike reality. Deleuze takes the schizophrenic, who already lives in a dreamlike reality, the crazy, as the model of the subversive, as the model of a person who imminently fights against the capitalist model of a lifetime of servitude to work, because they truly have no other choice. Deleuze proposes that instead of going to “resolve your problems”, going to therapy or on the psychoanalyst’s couch will only put a band-aid on a problem that emanates fundamentally from the social field. This is what Freud missed, and this is why Deleuze titles the first book of Capitalism and Schizophrenia Anti-Oedipus. 

Deleuze starts by talking about schizophrenia in the abstract, and moves on to conceive of how we could remake the whole “socius”- we need a psychoanalysis of the social itself, society itself needs to go to therapy! Who would be the psychoanalyst for that? Well, we, each other, would be. Schizoanalysis is born- we realize we are all crazy together, and we can do something about it. Because before the father beats the son, the father is beaten by the system every day at work, by the boss, by the check out line, by the debt collectors, by his whole life. This is no justification of the way things are- it is a way to get out of the moralism that traditionally plagues psychology, the moralism attached to what are essentially just the norms of bourgeois society. And as Foucault and Deleuze realized, though Marx is the towering thinker of the 19th century, he still swims like a fish in 19th century water. The 21st century is here, Mao is dead, Marx is dead, and we have to carry on, with only the record and ghostly trails left in the tracks.

How do we make sense of reality, Deleuze claims, when one is constantly fed information by way of digital feedback? When the advertisers know exactly what to show you at any given time on your computer screen, how do you escape from the digital prison? Deleuze not only shows, like Guy Debord in the Society of the Spectacle, that modern subjectivity is formed by the media, but how they form an inseparable whole, how they together form a person-media-technology assemblage. Why is this important? Because it portrays reality the way it actually is, where two things that look separate actually are not. Deleuze’s conclusions start out looking like common sense, but put together, they challenge the fundamental wisdom of Capitalism. Put together, like the main character in They Live, we are able to see through the prison of how we were conditioned to see the world, and a whole new world of potentiality emerges, almost visible, sometimes perceptible on the margins.

Deleuze continues his saga in A Thousand Plateaus, considered in postmodern philosophy a conceptual breakthrough and a work of towering genius. It must be said at this junction that Deleuze co-wrote the book with anti-psychiatric radical Felix Guatarri, to whom I have not given enough credit. The only reason Deleuze has been marked here as the genius is because we are pre-programmed to prefer the work of One over many, even though there have been many productive intellectual pairs- Watson and Crick, Marx and Engels, Sartre and Beauvoir, and not enough women pairs. Deleuze is the philosopher of addition, of multiplication- we need new assemblages, new becomings. It is here that Deleuze elaborates on the concept of becoming. This may be too much of a poetic concept for those hardened political and social thinkers who are concerned about the value of the GDP, materialism. But Deleuze is also a materialist, and becoming is essentially material. There is materially a becoming that we experience concretely when we take a walk in the woods, we become more like the animals themselves. We don’t want to be told anymore about logic and maxims and means of production- feeling matters to us. We don’t want to be told our culture doesn’t matter, our traditions don’t matter- they do, and capitalism has been stripping them away from us, and we are continually alienated from ourselves. Of course there are material processes going on, and I could quote statistics about world hunger. But I could also tell you about the story of one woman who contracted AIDS from a soldier in Haiti she thought loved her, and before that worked as a maid in the capital city for pennies while her rich clients engorged themselves. That is what we aim to do! Our suffering is real, and also our happiness!

This is why Deleuze and Guatarri are important to me, and important to the world, and self-respecting “experts” on Deleuze should not look to his more “rigorous” books on Kant and Hume as examples of his “true genius”, for they are perpetuating the logocentric model of thinking that has driven people away from academia, from thinking, as yet another example of “disconnected elitism”. Philosophy can matter to our lives, so much so that can shape history. D&G can shape history, and should, or we may face even darker times

A collection of aphorisms

I am going to do this post in Nietzschean aphorisms because, I feel like it. They are all connected, but cover a wide range of topics.

  1.  All paradoxes about the infinite are not really paradoxes- all seemingly illogical conclusions that come from infinities and the mathematics of infinite series only seem that way, but actually there is a deeper intuition at play. The infinite must contain all within itself and yet be able to add more- that is the definition after all of infinite. Correspondingly, all mathematics about infinities is not fascinating, just simply boring.
  2.  This is what Nietzsche meant by the fact that “mystical explanations are thought to be deep, the truth is they are not even shallow.” However this aphorism itself will be misunderstood by those who think that Nietzsche only thought that religion tricked the foolish. Nietzsche elsewhere in his corpus praised the surface of things, the shallowness, as opposed to pretensions of being “deep”. Therefore, paradoxically, Nietzsche’s statement is a praise of mysticism, or rather, a recognition that those who have “mystical insight” only have relative insight to the “herd”.
  3. One could misinterpret Nietzsche’s above-mentioned aphorism as pretentious, as a claim to immediate understanding of all metaphysical insights. But rather, Nietzsche understood that mystical understandings of the world precisely work from taking what is everyday ordinary experience and making it uncommon. We all have experienced those moments (which may be profoundly uncomfortable) where suddenly we see something we thought we knew very well and suddenly it seems frightening or strange.
  4. Human beings only learn through experience. The constant sensory flux of information, combined with the overwhelming amount of stuff that is in the world and the fact that the world is always changing, means we only learn through repetition. (Oh there’s that thing again- what was it called? Cow!)
  5. This is what Tantric Buddhism or Zen means by the fact that ordinary mind is the basis for everything, or rather, why the ordinary itself is brought out as something to be exalted. Because behind what we view everyday, if we alter our perception, are entire worlds. Like in the scene at the beginning of Blue Velvet by David Lynch, where a dead man is laying on the ground, and they gradually begin to zoom into his ear, and one begins to see the bugs crawling on the grass. Behind our normal human way of viewing the world, there are things that are normally beyond our perception.
  6. Much of the unseen world has been conquered by humanity, through microscopes, telescopes, infrared detectors, or simply exploring places that were ignored, forgotten, or previously uncharted in our own world, like the bottom of the ocean. Most of the world is now aware of things that are invisible- how incredible is that! Things like viruses, bacteria, etc. Therefore, one day, humanity will not only be aware of levels below that of the microbiological (the protein, DNA), but one day organic chemistry will also become ubiquitous, even though it is generally still specialized knowledge.
  7. Most of the world is aware of the atom, probably because of the advances in nuclear physics that led to nuclear reactors and the atomic bomb. But the quantum world is so new of a discovery, that humanity hasn’t had time to situate it into its understanding of the world. With discoveries of phenomena like the Planck length, we have seemingly hit the bottom of the barrel. History should show us that there is no bottom of the barrel. The human can transcend the human, but not through merging with technology. Humanity will simply no longer apply to what we have become.
  8. Through all of the change that humanity has undergone, we are still mortal beings of flesh and blood for whom death is no abstract concept, but an ever-pressing reality. Science will not save us from this. But perhaps now the difference is this- in days gone by humanity accepted the infinite, made peace with it. Now it stands as a dark chasm that is both threatening and a challenge waiting to be explored. The question now is- will we, or have we, already reached those limits? Is knowledge of humanity’s theoretical limitations a prerequisite for a full understanding of what it means to be human?
  9. Heidegger undertook a project of full ontological understanding of Being, through the lens of understanding humanity, or Dasein. One was necessary for the other. Dasein is fundamentally, for Heidegger, a being towards death. If this is Dasein’s fundamental nature, can other aspects of Dasein be changed? Our lifespan? The way we act in the world? The way we relate to each other as a species?
  10. I think of Star Trek every time I want to understand what humans could be someday. The Vulcans are just a picture of what we could become, a society wholly based on logic, with an understanding of who they are in the cosmos. As knowledge continues to build over time, could we not, in some sci-fi future, approximate the Vulcans? Couldn’t all of humanity be given, from the time of birth, the tools to go through the world and all knowledge from prior generations, like the Vulcans do in their Science Academy? In my mind, what humanity has yet to achieve is a kind of worldwide planetary society.
  11. A worldwide planetary society would not be homogeneous, or tell everyone what to do. But it would instead allow the entire world to thrive, and create an end to things like hunger through automatic restitution of lost crops due to natural disasters, etc. It would require basically a UN that we pay taxes to, and is fully functional with no dominance of one nation (cough cough the United States). Only then could humanity look back collectively on our dark past and basically say- what the hell happened?
  12. Zizek is right when we say we need to go further and not admire local organization. We need new international solutions to our problems- international laws with real teeth, levels above the state level that can coordinate things with a degree of actual consistency. As it is, our fledgling attempt at world order has failed- it did not stop Rwanda, it did not Bosnia, or Darfur. And it certainly won’t stop Syria, because we have yet to let go of the doctrine of national sovereignty

DINOS (Democrats in Name Only)- The Deathknell of America

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein votes with Trump a third of the time. I repeat, a third of the time! Her Joe Manchin, and company give new meaning to the term “with friends like these, who needs enemies?”

The spotlight on Donald Trump has clothed the Republican party in an air of hypothetical “decency” in comparison, based purely on rhetoric alone. They are all just as corrupt. Every single one of them.

And I’m tired of the asinine, school-boyish type of politics, where Trump says a dirty word, or says something stupid, and we all gawk. Oooh, gasp! Grow up and read something about policy.

The defenders of the establishment will always come back and say “but Trump! The decorum, where’s our decency, o my lord!!” *Cue fainting* O my heavens, golly gee willakers!

Please.

That doesn’t mean we have to lower the terms of debate and become as crude as our opponents. But it means we have to seriously think about what’s actually wrong with our country, what’s BEEN wrong with our country, long before Trump came into office. We have to think about the structural reasons that gave us Trump! *Hint hint its the electoral college and gerrymandering*

On a serious note, the electoral college, gerrymandering, money in politics- all of these fall under one rubric, systemic corruption, or what my adviser likes to call structural corruption (as an analog for structural violence). If you know anything about structural violence, its the violence that is caused by those in power to keep the status quo the way it is, and violence is understood in a broader sense. Structural violence is the daily misery and poverty that we face in our inner cities, the exploding prison population, or so the buzzword goes, the “school to prison pipeline”.

The only candidate who was serious about ending funding and kickbacks for private prisons (and outlawing them) was Bernie Sanders. The military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex- all perpetuated by structural corruption.

In a Marxist framework, does the ideological-state apparatus, or hegemony, or whatever you want to call it, insure that the bourgeois state will always reproduce itself until there is revolution? Yes, but I’m not willing to accept that that revolution has to be violent, as the election of Salvador Allende in Chile showed (as long as its not undermined by the CIA).

Feinstein, just like Trump, and just like Clinton, is controlled by the elite, and everyone knows it, but some aren’t willing to admit the problem. I have yet to find a serious middle class Clinton supporter (or I should say anti-progressive Democrat) willing to admit that that isn’t the case. They just DON’T CARE. All history is the history of class struggle. I’m sorry if that scares the socks of the older elite, but I really don’t care!

They didn’t believe students when they protested the Vietnam War, they will always look down upon us. Elitism and snobbery is the name of the game in this country- poor whites look down on poor blacks, etc. Its what perpetuated segregation and Jim Crow. People like to feel they are superior to other people, even when they just profit off an unfair system, and found themselves in a good position in life. Class is always perpetuated by nepotism.

So once again, I tell my friends who are unwilling to embrace the socialist label- embrace it! Its what they fear the most! It has always been the hope of a true emancipatory politics, there is no shame in it, because socialism represents the vision of a society that takes care of all its people, not just in name only. It is a society that doesn’t let you, or your mother, go bankrupt when you get sick (which still happens in America- thanks Obama).

If you are frightened by what Trump represents, and what he means for your family, I ask you to extend your heart even further, to those innocent lives bombed by drone strikes that are kept in place by complicit Democrats, to those who were foreclosed on and became homeless through no fault of their own in 2008, to those in North Korea who still languish under the banner of “sane foreign policy” and are starved by an imperialist embargo.

A socialist vision is a world without oppression, a world where we take seriously what Martin Luther King said, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. A world where we no longer suffer under what MLK called the triple evils of our world: Racism, Imperialism, and Poverty (or Capitalism). Trump represents a strengthening of that first evil. But we should not ignore our complicity in the other two.

 

What is Love? (baby don’t hurt me)

So let’s get one thing out of the way- the title of my blog is Amorinoblog because that’s just my last name. But I think it was Jung who said that names sometimes direct the course of a person’s life in unseen ways. The deep unconscious definitely exists, that’s one thing I know for a fact through my experiences as a person. My unconscious is constantly operating and making connections for me and directing my life in ways I never consciously could. But a friend recently drew my attention to the fact that my blog could be read as “amor (love) in blog”. Now that’s something.

My last name is Portuguese in origin, and it translates to cupid or little love, the diminutive form of love. I don’t know the origin of this name or why it was the name of a family in Portugal, but I’ve always felt that my name has a certain guiding role for me or spiritual kind of power. At least personally. In Tibetan culture, indeed most cultures outside of the West, names have power, they are more directly attached to things in the world, their meanings aren’t obscure or etymological. But using Tibetan/Bhutanese culture as an example, children are named after holy or auspicious things such as jewels (Pema) and holy sceptres (Dorje). Sometimes they are just named Karma, pretty straightforward. Name is destiny. Tenzin Gyatso, the name of the Dalai Lama, literally means Ocean of Wisdom.

So what is love? Love for most of us is the personal feeling of loving specifically another person. It is based on certain characteristics about a person, based on familial familiarity, on things like kinship or friendship. Is love these things? On a relative level, the answer has to be yes. Simply “letting go” of these attachments often doesn’t work or is detrimental. But is love an attachment?

First of all, in my mind, there can be attachment that mutually fulfills two people, and attachment that is essentially negative in character. But the fundamental insight that the Buddha had was that love is based on the desire for permanence, a permanence that cannot ultimately be satisfied. Attachment leads to suffering. This does not mean that breaking attachments does not lead to suffering as well.

Is it possible to love without being attached? I think this is the meaning of karuna, or the Sanskrit term for compassion. In ultimate karuna, there is no desire for ANY kind of repayment in one’s love. Most love is selfish- it wants to be loved. Kind of like the John Lennon Love is Real- “Love is wanting to be loved”. Well hate to disagree with John, but real love does not need anything in return. A mother’s love approaches this kind of love, it is a good model for thinking about it, but even a mother desires her son or daughter to repay them with kindness, and this should be our desire as well. But this should, this ethical dimension to love, is what is lacking I think in people’s everyday understanding of love.

Christian love, brotherly love- this of course approaches this concept as well. But ultimately, even Christian dogma reproduces the idea that God is a “jealous” god (maybe more Judaism, but its still in the Bible, so sorry Slavoj). Now from a Buddhist point, the idea that God is jealous is very strange. The whole idea of divinity in Eastern religion is based on the idea that one has achieved liberation from negative emotion. The essential insight of Buddhist psychology is the idea of the near enemy. Love has as its near enemy jealousy, determination has as its near enemy stubbornness, and so on. Maybe the Nichomachean ethics is like this as well, but I’m not sure.

So maybe it could be phrased like this- love is a desire, but Love is a desire to not only help, but free any living being from suffering.

It is the identification of love purely with personal happiness that has caused many problems in our culture, even beyond material structural problems. It has caused us to ignore our neighbor, it has created callousness in the upper classes. This is why Jesus said “I come with the sword”, as well as the famous parable about the eye of the needle- because his message was one of righteous indignation at the treatment of the poor.

At the end of the day, its not that our understanding of love has to be reintegrated into any particular sort of Theology, as fundamentalists claim. True love for me actually isn’t God’s love, unless it is as an ideal. True love is compassion for the suffering.

I also believe, as Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche says in his book Not for Happiness, that we have to modify our Western idea of compassion as trying to materially aid the poor and the meek, the normal objects of compassion for probably most people. Ultimate highest compassion encompasses every single living thing, including our enemies, political or otherwise. For me this is a valuable lesson for leftist movements. We will never sway the masses with hatred. As much hate and resentment as we feel is justified for those that hoard resources at the expense of the “wretched of the Earth”, I feel fundamentally that the idea that revolution can only be achieved by violent revolution has to be wrong. For our mutual survival, it has to be wrong- the stakes are ultimately too high, in an age of nuclear weapons, to repeat the mistakes of the 20th century. Non-violence is the solution of the 21st century, where it was only a glimmer of hope in the 20th.

To me, one of the best exemplars and expressions of love in the recent past was Martin Luther King Jr. He represents for many people still today the hope and promise of a better tomorrow, a real fighter for social justice, who was not afraid to call out hypocrisy, but used his prophetic voice to advocate for a higher calling. It is people like MLK, Bishop Oscar Romero, the Dalai Lama- in short, advocates of Peace and Human Rights, who knew and advanced our notion of what love is. It is fitting that two of the people I just mentioned won the Nobel Prize for Peace, and one of them is in the process of becoming beatified as a saint.

I don’t want to turn this into a debate about non-violent vs. violent tactics of the oppressed- all I know is that despite certain gains made by violent revolution, they came at great cost, and often reproduced systems of oppression in the long run. Whether non-violent revolutions like the Indian revolution ultimately worked is a different story. But I know that our message now for how to change our world has to not only be practical but ethical. Non-violence or ahimsa is both practical and ethical. 

As the Dalai Lama says, “if you have to be selfish, be selfish wisely- love others!”

Also, kudos to the developers of wordpress for making it so that it saves your draft as you write. I accidentally swiped left on my keyboard and thought I lost my post. Saves a whole lot of frustration with that feature

OM MANI PADME HUM

The specter of Marx in anthropology

Anthropology, as a humanistic enterprise, has always had (except for periods of extreme empiricism/biologism and certain isolated schools) a humanitarian mission since its real inception by Franz Boas. With the rise (and maybe fall) of postmodernism in anthropology, which has been always in the context of how to get cultural relativism and the depiction of other cultures right, the question has become not how to depict other cultures, but how to not get it wrong, and see within ourselves as writers of culture possible sources of bias. However, given the enormous influence of political economy, globalization studies, etc. anthropology has still to ask the question- what about Marx?

Anthropology COULD normatively assign Marx the category of another social theorist of the 19th century, and integrate his theories as just one more theory to study along with Weber and Durkheim. Or, it could (and I believe it already has, based on my experience in anthropology) take Marx seriously. I believe the answer why it should is not only an empirical question that someone like David Harvey or David Graeber could answer with judicious use of anthropological data and explanation of the rise of the neoliberal economic order and why it has influenced every local culture. There are a myriad books on this subject, from Graeber’s Debt: A 5000 year History to Wallerstein’s Introduction to World Systems Analysis- the right anthropologist’s have already done a good job of doing this. They have already analyzed colonialism from the right historical perspective, looked at it from the perspective of the colonized with postcolonialism, applied critical analysis. But what I don’t think they have had done a good job of doing is taking philosophy seriously, or justifying their project on a level of fundamentals, ethics, etc.

At first glance, this statement should appear nonsensical, because why wouldn’t anthropology try to accurately describe the postcolonial neoliberal reality of the 21st century? Haven’t they done enough by appealing to notions of human rights, etc?

The political problems of the 1950s and 1960s still haunts anthropology. During the Cold War and the Red Scare, many anthropologists worked for the government to understand the Communist threat, and many of afraid of being accused of having Marxist leanings. But while good critiques have already been made of the sort of public anthropology that sells their soul to corporations, works with the military in Iraq to understand local culture in order to further American foreign policy objectives, anthropologists remain reticent to unabashedly in writing critique capitalism. Now, I say this knowing that some anthropologists (like Graeber) remain professed and “out” anarchists, and many anthropologist’s writings are geared toward working against the established order of things.

But why Marx? Because anthropology still has a commitment at the end of the day, to Fanon’s wretched of the earth”. We remain committed to those who lack the voice to speak for themselves, the powerless. And this commitment, which does not exclude the First World as much as the Third World may be its focus, is fundamentally, and this cannot be denied- a spiritual commitment. This is what Marx himself failed to grasp. Why should he care? Why have compassion at all? Why not embrace the individualism of the modern age?

A “rationalist” or “pragmatic” reason may be that one could easily be oneself in the lumpen, in rags, and that as capitalism ravages our planet, we are beginning to personally feel the heat in our middle class dens (literally). But it is something that we have to own up to- that a commitment to the powerless among us is a fundamentally social commitment, a commitment to what philosopher Slavoj Zizek likes to refer to as the commons- our common social and ecological substance. This is why we cannot pretend that at least in this more deep sense (maybe not in the sense of previous incarnations of the idea in political movements of the 20th century) that the study of society and sociality must be socialist in orientation. To ignore the insights of Marx in history, in the fundamental difference between the haves and have nots, the dynamics between labor and capital, is to be blind to the immensity of human suffering on this planet that is structural, and caused by our economic system working for the few, not the many