So if I'm right -- if my liberal friends want to believe that the State is not just an emanation of the fundamental conflict of Many and Few, and this is why they have to keep believing, in turn, in the essential goodness of the Democratic Party -- then we push the question back a step: Why do they want to believe this fairytale about the State?Always a pleasure to see a writer I admire moving in the direction of dread anarchy, and I'll offer an answer to that ultimate question, which is that the question begs its own answer as surely as the inevitable answer begs the question. Why is the state? Because it is. Through all the dross, the thousands of years of philosophy and speculation, all the justifications and genealogies and taxonomies and myths of origin, no one has ever come up with a tale about the state that in its most fundamental essence goes one step beyond the old mountaineer's motto: because it is there. It is, when you think about it, an awfully curious ontology, and there is a certain poetic justice in the fact that the man who formulated it was murdered in cold blood by the very inanimate inevitability that he sought to surmount. How's that for a metaphor for the state?
-Mister Smith
As for the Democratic party, MJS wonders how anyone can believe in it--that is to say, not simply recognize its existence but imbue it with some quality of transcendence, or, well, what would we say in this spiritually denuded age?--some values, perhaps. Actually, I fall rather in line with some of the most-cracked crackpots of the so-called Right on the question: in an age in which the transcendent is at best a purchasable commodity, what else is there but the hierarchy of a kind of secular mother church? Fairness, moderation, equality, merit--the Donk treats its various political commitments like objects in a catechism. These outward expressions of an inner state are really all about a sick sort of grace. The often-remarked condescension of liberals is intimately familiar to anyone who's ever spent a few weekends in the pews.
46 comments:
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say and I read at an above third grade level. It kind of sounds like you're giving up critique in favor of naturalism. Or Hegel. Then you turn around and insult liberals as believers. I guess to some kind of logorrheic hipster cynic that's an insult? Unclear.
Nonny just doesn't know how to sing along with Hal E. Looyeh, the mulish choirmaster.
Mr Holland Groped Us
Dread anarchy?
Dreaded Locke!
Dread Scott?
when i caught a glimpse beneath socrates' skirt, oh how my heart leapt!
I have been to the mountaintop!
Now, everybody steal all the office supplies and head for the foothills... we'll wait em' out!
Nah, nonny. If you scratch a liberal, you're invariably gonna get a "...yeah, but..."
That's what makes the mother church thing work, as a metaphor. Kinda like an apologist for the RCC pivoting from priestly child rape to "yeah, but the Church is against the death penalty" or "yeah, but it was the climate of liberalism which made the priests do it..."
Here a great piece on the 18th Brumaire and how we can't speak of "The State" as an eternal form passing through time to join us in every era. Instead, we can analyze, say, the capitalist state, or the feudal state, etc.
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2012/01/state-of-18th-brumaire.html
there is a certain poetic justice in the fact that the man who formulated it was murdered in cold blood by the very inanimate inevitability that he sought to surmount
who is the man who?
. . . in an age in which the transcendent is at best a purchasable commodity . . .
Notice that you are repeating state ideology here, not criticizing it.
hey eye owes:
to answer your own question with a tautology isn't sound.
in fact, asking "why is X?" is a psuedo-question to begin with.
from the inability to answer a question, we can only infer that the question is in error.
The state clearly exists so that some people can piss on other people.
It's not that complicated, and we can say fuck-all to Hegel, Locke, Hobbes, or Doggie Howser. The state is there because it's a good way of getting the loot, keeping it or making more of it. The argument will always be about who gets to be in charge of the division of the spoils and who receives them. Everything else (including the Donk line or pseudo-philo wankery) is bullshit.
you start with mobs of murderous monkeys - crooked timber, as they say, metaphorically
The state is because human nature includes a natural inclination to violence and indifference to the Other. As such, if the state was not, we'd invent it immediately.
As for the Democratic Party, there are two aspects to its exaltation by progressives. First, most humans evidently have a strong desire for the transcendent. And when you stop believing in God, you don't believe in nothing, you believe in anything. The Democratic Party, in that view, is one among many things that people now invest with supernatural awe. Many people do the same for nature, to take one example.
But second, ideologically democrats believe in the justification of the state as the will of the people. (La wik on pop sov.) As such, the organs of state are imbued with the holiness of the people. Of course, this is only true when the state actually is doing the will of the people. (And there's No True Scotsman here...) Thus, progs, lacking other religion, tend to apotheosize the Democratic party. Conversely, the Republican party is worse than neutral; it is positively demonic for holding back progress.
Of course, smarter progs know that the Democratic party is not, itself, holy. Some even oppose it as too compromised. But even these keep the Faith in the New York Times, Harvard, the State Department, etc.
@Blow Urself
Indeed.
Because the combination of bullying and physical violence on which each frickin' state from time immemorial is based is so different between the feudal state, theocratic state, corporatist state, bolshevik state, and so on.
Now kindly go blow Urself with a vacuum cleaner.
The Dull Sycophant
The state is one of those made up features of our world which people seem to believe has some tangible, literal existence in the same way that a house or a cloud does. That is why it is the God of our time.
UNPERSUASIVE. Surely there is something better to say than the state is what it is. It's not so curious an ontology that Monsieur can't goose it with an inspection, anyhow.
You know, given that most of the offenses of the major religions have happened while a single religion was used as a consolidating force for state power (i.e. Spanish Inquisition; medieval ghettoes; etc) I submit that an anarchist state (or at the very least one THAT LEAVES YOU THE FUCK ALONE) is the only one in which any kind of real spiritual life is possible for the majority of human beings.
Should be "Mort", no "e".
Generally, I like your commentary, Ioz - but I see lots of 'don't' and no 'do' -- read lots of criticism and no credible suggestion for repair or replacement -- while you certainly acknowledge change would/should be desirable.
I may be way off here and I'm only a short-time reader but I get the feeling that, way down in your bored, tormented personal recesses, you hold on to some tenets of classical liberalism and abhor what 'liberalism' has morphed in to. The church metaphor is apt ... but, in a two-party state in which 'conservatives' (who in no way resemble classical conservatives) have just as much stake in the State, why so much ire saved for the Democrats? I wonder if you fancy yourself a George Orwell-sort-of-critic? And - Doesn't the church metaphor work better if we see the dems as Catholics and the repubs as the Church of England or something?
The masturbatory attack on the dems alongside a largely blind eye to systemic failings can get a bit frustrating. You made brief mention of Occupy - in the same way a skeptical Uncle might feign interest in a niece's political commentary at a Thanksgiving dinner table. What's our path out of neoliberal Egypt then, Moses? You've got the self-worth to forge forward within a forum you've created here - why not use it to spur discussion that leads your readership out of the straight-line thinking of Hegelian history?
As I write, I'm trying to come up with a notion of what you support...what you think evidences the good... something positive. I can't do it. You like your boyfriend, I guess. And you've got a taste for rich food. Otherwise, I know you hate Obama, the democrats, Jews, Israel, America, Academia, Matt Yglesias, the Military, Ron Paul, Democracy, Oligarchy -- and I'm sure I've missed a few.
I realize there's that sort of play-on-Lebowski thing happening here but, at a point, the schtick refers back to yesterday's comment -- [what is ]"authenticity but the habituation of the self to its own autobiographical invention".
I suppose the frustration here isn't uniquely directed at you -- it seems as though internet commentary tends to be marginalized by its own tone -- the poking-fun-sarcasm that's so often bundled in legitimate and intelligent discussion on the web. Oh...well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
and of course, as "repetitio est mater studiorum":
you're nuts if you think you can up and change a society like that, or from that. that's the whole fucking point, man. that's the whole gist of this blog, man: let people alone. permit everything. approve nothing. I can see how some of this might be confusing for some of ya'll. . .because I mean, the laws were there and they were bad to begin with. . .and we must never have such bad laws . . .therefore we must have better, more equitable, less racist laws? WHY DON'T YOU STOP ENFORCING STUPID FUCKING SHIT? how about that? why is that not the simplest and best argument? ENFORCE NOTHING. JUST FUCKING STOP. it actually is that breathtakingly simple.
Mr Fundamental
The Dull Sycophant
As Anon 7:55 - well, I only went to University for 2 years and community college for 4 (while working full time) so the repetition must not have taken, I guess.
I was taught that the State is a system of enforcement that benefits the winners ... but I feel like, since the US of A is the winningest of the winners with some of the losers we must have a duty or some such to be more politically savvy than the rest of the world, yet the opposite proves true, no? Cui buono?
@7:55
Do read the archives.
Anon @ 12:29
George Mallory. Died on Everest in 1924.
There's got to be some kind of syndrome name given to the newish reader who is attracted to everything, but then can't figure out what system monsieur advocates. Every time I read one of those outbursts I freak out and think that I wrote it six months ago and it somehow got posted.
Anyway, are we talking about Arthur and Mordred here, what with the invention of states and death at its hand?
AND, I'll stick up for Leonard. That seemed good.
STAY DREAD
I may be way off here and I'm only a short-time reader but I get the feeling that, way down in your bored, tormented personal recesses, you hold on to some tenets of classical liberalism and abhor what 'liberalism' has morphed in to.
You may consider the possibility that this could be a projection of yourself onto IOZ.
The upshot is that you are in a pretty good place to get over any misplaced feelings of disappointment or satisfaction from personal identification with an catch all ideological label like liberalism. The torment is the first to go, which is good because its the worst. Then the boredom, which will make you more interesting to members of your preferred sex. The last to go is the liberalism. Many people have the hardest time kicking that one, its a mental addiction that tends to die a long slow death, and some never get completely free of its icy grip.
Here's a thumbnail of 7:55PM Nonny ("Generally, I like your commentary, IOZ, but...."):
"IOZ, it's YOUR responsibility to tell ME and OTHERS what we should do. WE have no obligation to fend for ourselves; it is YOUR obligation since you chose to blawggh. All blawgghers are obligated to have UNIVERSAL SOLUTIONS that work for EVERYONE and criticism --even a mocking, funny sort-- has no place in MY UTOPIA, pal."
Way off Karl. The critical voice/humor is fine...and no one said anything about universals...SOME constructive thought about how things might improve would be desirable. Your childish, sarcastic tone is exactly what I mentioned. Congratulations on being good at the Internet.
"La Morte" of Mallory? What, his dead wife? Daughter? Mare? Left testicle?
Learn to French convincingly already.
Karl's a dick.
And you won't get a response, but good comments.
Though you do give yourself away with the foolishness about hating Jews and Israel.
It is what we thought it was! And we let it off the hook!
George Mallory. Died on Everest in 1924.
Oh, uh, yes, of course. And here I thought IOZ meant Jesus or Socrates. Fuck me.
I suppose the frustration here isn't uniquely directed at you -- it seems as though internet commentary tends to be marginalized by its own tone -- the poking-fun-sarcasm that's so often bundled in legitimate and intelligent discussion on the web. Oh...well.
Monsieur is an aphorist, a seller of spices. As for some sort of a meal to put them on: I would have thought that, as leftists, anarchists, long-leggedy beasties and things that go bump in the night, we should prefer to scrounge up dinner by communal smorgasbord. One adds this, another that. On most days, what we'll get is snark stew; that's about the random luck of it. Ask us to bring something to the party, and half of us will bring paper plates and plastic utensils. It's not like we consulted each other beforehand. We're here, we're not here, and that's it.
On some days we'll get more than we expected. I feel that I occasionally learn something. Don't ask me what, however; I wouldn't know yet. I learn by slow osmosis, it appears. Lichtenberg said he couldn't remember most of the books he had read, no more than he could remember most of the meals he had eaten; but they had done him good, he added, all the same.
And when you stop believing in God, you don't believe in nothing, you believe in anything.
This is a Chestertonian trope: to which the late debater-general Hitchens replied, that anyone who believes in God could already be described as believing in anything.
At any rate, it isn't God versus ideology. Most people believe in both God and the State, not to mention many other things. They're polytheists, though they'd never admit it; but it's the only way they make sense of their lives.
Prostul nu are dubii. Prostul are numai ingamfare.
O moarte. Doua morti.
Moartea lui Mallory, nu mortul lui Mallory.
Death of Mallory, not the dead of Mallory.
Not to mention that Le Morte D'Artur is the FIRST thing that pops up in goole.
Si la ureche uite-o floare.
plus ça change
The Dull Sycophant
The Dull Sycophant
Antonello, contrary to the master-debater Hitchens, in practice God is not "just anything". Christianity has existed for 2000 years, and they've refined it down to something. And in particular, it is a something that did serve as the ideological substrate of the West. Which is to say: not only did it "work" for whole societies for centuries, it was the most successful societal ideological base that the world has yet seen.
Of course, in the abstract Hitchens is right; it would be possible to believe that, for example, the God of the Hebrews and Jesus also is a giant purple alien who will return to the Earth in a UFO and rapture us all up for anal probing. It is thus worth thinking on why it is that modern Christians are relatively restrained in their moonbattery as versus modern atheists (or worse, "spiritual but not religious").
Leonard,
Are you saying that Christianity was a 2000 year exercise in shifting and evolving a bunch of rationalizations? That would partly explain all the child molesting. If you can believe that just telling yourself you accept Jesus as your savior changes you to send you heaven bound, just about anything you tell yourself could make sense to you.
I looooove the fact that Leonard can state the age of Christianity as 2000 years AND that as an 'idealogical substrate' (whatever the fuck that means) was the most successful ideological basis for society the world has yet seen.
Jesus-fucking-Christ, now your telling us successful societies began with the alleged birth of a poor bastard child in a manger!?!?
Shorter Leonard: I am unaware of history predating around 6 to 4 B.C. I can also assure you that I have a definition of 'successful societies' and their 'ideological basis' in mind that I am too lazy to share.
Leonard's timeline is off by at least a few centures. Even if one assumes that Constantine's acceptance of Christianity and the Council of Nicaea suddenly created a "successful substrate de novo", the Council did not meet untikl A.D. 325 (i know, I know...he's only off by 300 years). Nor did the Roman Empire completely adopt the Christian church...there was backsliding and paganism still around for quite awhile. And, this unifying successful structure collapsed into the so-called Dark Ages for awhile, with Islamic invasions. Not to forget the various intra-christian wars and pograms.
I know we are talking a simple summary here...but man, oh man, that post simplifies things beyond the point of coherence!
Justin: a cult's evolution into a religion can be viewed, as you put it, as an "exercise in shifting and evolving a bunch of rationalizations". This is a very reductive view of things, however. It is like saying cooking a five course meal from scratch is "an exercise in measuring, chopping, heating and stirring food".
And again, evidently you think that the core belief of Christianity which you mock is stupid. Yet believing Christians are less prone to believing other non-Christian stupid stuff than non believers. So you are wrong: not "just about anything" makes sense. You believe Christians believe nonsense. Yes, but their nonsense crowds out other nonsense.
Our choice here, as Godlike technocratic progressive rulers, is in what variety of nonsense the average woman believes. If you take away her God and Jesus, she moves on to bigfoot, astrology, or UFOs. Or to protestant Islam: (‘Now that I’m Muslim,’ I said, ‘I will never have my breasts out in public again.’) We evidently don't have the choice to convert people to atheists.
Mantis, I also love the fact that I can state the age of Christianity. As for the rest of your hateful rant, I feel sorry for you.
Brian, I do not count from the time Christianity captured the state because it was a viable religion long before then. It was spreading like wildfire; many whole communities had converted. It captured the state because it was popular. Before it could become popular, Christianity did have to evolve quite a bit. For example, Jesus was a Jew who was preaching to Jews. The universalization of the New Covenant was invented after the Romans crucified him, by Paul in particular.
I found a lot of worthwhile info here!
this site
Post a Comment