Newmedia on Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:41:09 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Re: <.nettime> the baby boomers war |
Dear Open (Borders): << Open letter to all the people active in '68 who today have the power to decide between war and peace I was active in the anti-Dow Chemical demonstrations in Madison, Wisc. (the Berkeley of the Midwest <g>) in '68, perhaps I qualify . . . << The war that is being fought in Kosovo has been conceived and launched in the name of the ideals of '68. The leading cultural, political, even military powers that decided to resort to war are all children of '68: Joshka Fischer, Gerard Schroeder, Dani Cohn Bendit, Jorge Solanas, William Clark and even Clinton himself. This is a fine beginning for trying to understand the remarkable paradoxes we now must all confront. How could the anti-war generation, my generation, organize and relentlessly pursue and direct a world-threatening war? Is this just power corrupting? Is war beyond human control? Are people blinded by their own "ideals"? Or, it there something else going on here? Something paradoxical? << The ideological genesis of this war can be found in the theories of Glucksmann, Henri-Levy, Finkielkraut: it is the product of a rethinking process that took place inside the conscience of '68 during the eighties and nineties. The utopian ideals of '68 which found a foothold in maoism have turned into a utopia which is no less noble but a thousand times more deadly. Noble? As in "aristocratic"? Could the leaders of NATO possibly think of themselves as a new, "natural" aristocracy? History teaches us that the social role of aristocracy is war. How did my generation become "aristocrats"? Noble? To grasp the paradox you are introducing (or any other), you must be willing to question the presumptions which lie underneath it. You must be willing to question whether utopia is *ever* anything but deadly. Ever. Utopia=death? Hmmm . . . is the paradox beginning to sink in? <<(snip) 31 years ago, when in May we took over the centres of almost every city in Europe, we had no concept of winning or losing. Our only aim was to hold aloft the banner of Justice and Freedom. Ah, but now you are confusing the soldiers with the generals. Those streets were also filled with very real representatives of communist and other governments. Other agendas. Agent-provocateurs, hardened social-revolutionaries, battle-tested demogogues -- everyone was there -- all in the mob. (Or, as we used to call it, the MOBE.) Now, you need to question your presumptions about how the "demos" -- the "people", the populace, the crowds -- functions. Therein lies another great paradox. <<Today, those same people, I am sure with the best of intentions, are acting in the same way, without realising that what they are doing may explode into a horrific war that will involve the whole Eurasian continent. The road to hell -- precisely the destination of many leading participants in this conflict -- has always been paved with the best of intentions. Paradoxical? << (snip) The problem also lies in the fact that the losers in this world (who incidentally, outnumber the winners by ten to one) have now discovered that the giant who towers over them is not as omnipotent as he seemed. First with Saddam Hussein, then in Somalia, then with Bin Laden and the Talibans and now with Milosevic, Arkan and Sesely, this list of butchers and mafia godfathers continue to prove how weak the West is. After all, it is common knowledge that bombs cannot crush mass psychopathy and the fact that bombs excite psychopaths is surely not news to anyone. Fascinating. Filled with paradoxes. Who is this "West"? The U.S.? Hardly. Europe's "parlimentary left" who you began your note with? Closer, but this is *their* first war , so the rest of your list doesn't make sense. Fascinating. And, since we all know that bombs stimulate madness, why don't you presume that madness is exactly the result that these bombers are looking for? "Strategic Bombing" was invented (sorta) by the British in WW II. (H.G. Wells actually invented it earlier, but that's another story.) Remember the firestorms of Dresden? "Strategic Bombing" was then and is now a technique of psychological warfare. Hiroshima was psychological warfare. Modern warfare is mostly psychological warfare and has been for 50+ years, many military historians agree. Why would this war be any different? Psychological warfare against whom? How about you and me. We are all being bombed. (Which is certainly not to minimize the horrendous suffering of the millions on the front lines.) We are all at war. Feel safe? You aren't, sorry. Madness is everywhere. <<Paul Watzklawicz, an expert in pragmatic communication disturbances, maintains that the best way to resolve an international or interethnic conflict is to close the leaders of both sides in a room and to have them perform a purely linguistic exercise. Both of them must recite to the other, the others grievances and motives and the exercise can only be concluded when they have both realised that the other is actually outlining their own point of view. Okay, so if you are at war (with whom? the "fascists", the "winners", the "imperialists"), then are you willing to adopt the point of view of your opponent? <<According to the greatest communication psychotherapist of all time (Watzklawicz) the correct cure is not Rambouillet. No, as we are all informed, Rambouillet was a staged excuse for this war. <<However, we all know that there was nothing systematic about '68, it was not a psycho-relation or a communicative disorder it was dialectic. On one side right, on the other wrong, the good versus the bad. Aha! Now you are approaching the heart of the paradox. Is it possible that we will somehow extract ourselves (even a little) from this deadly, utopian "dialectic"? Dialectic=death? Who needs a system when you have a dialectic? << (snip) Of all the probable solutions for the next century, the one that puts the American government in control seems to me to be the least dangerous. The United States is a society that has learnt more than any other how to assimilate ethnical and technological complexities. It would not be too much to ask for us to surrender our national identity (for what it is worth) in exchange for a pacifist government covering the entire complexity of the planet. Now you have really done it! Which American government? The one which refused to vote in support of the present air war or the one which will never agree to send in a ground invasion or the one which has absolutely no interest in running the world or the one which is obsessed with high-school kids who have been raised by machines so they act like machines or the one which will never surrender its own national identity? Which one? The one without a president? If we trade nation-states for an empire, it won't be an American empire (except by accident of URL). And, it won't be a pacifist empire, either. And, while it will be very friendly (have a nice day), it won't be pretty at all. <<Anti-Americanism is both rancorous and reactionary. Not to mention (in this context), stupid. This is not an American war. World government is not an American project! <<Deprived of an alternative international prospective, anti-Americanism borders on fascism. Hmmm . . . you lost me there. Fascism is economic "corporativism", right? It is a situation where commercial interests are fronted by the government (who also uses various techniques to distract the "demos"). In general, the anti-Americanism around here (i.e. nettime) is really anti-corporativism, or, strictly speaking . . . anti-fascism. Right? How about an "alternative international perspective"? How about we revive the Roman Empire? Too long ago? Okay, how about we revive the most recent empire, the British Empire. Doesn't need to be revived you say? Already in charge, you say? Hmmm . . . now you're getting somewhere. Is it any wonder that Blair is the leading hawk? Is it any wonder that MI-6 (technically they work for the Royal Family, not Blair, but anyway) supplied the details to the court in the Hague to ensure the recent "war criminal" indictments would prolong the war and possibly even make negotiations impossible? Which empire is your real favorite? The best? <<In this war, however, the decisive factor is not what the chanters of thirty year old slogans would have us believe. The decisive factor is not the imperialistic drive of the United States (which does exist, it would be ridiculous to state the contrary). So, call me silly. It . . . does . . . not . . . exist. Many people who live on the North American continent are indeed very modern imperialists but this imperialism is not the policy or interest of the United States, to the extent that this nation-state still exists, of course. <<This is not an imperialistic war, as empires have other means of reaching their objectives: money, image, virtualisation. The decisive factor of this war is humanitarian fanaticism indifferent to the consequences of its actions. The consequences of these actions fired by fanaticism runs against the concept of global American government. They only serve as the catalyst for a global war which multiplies all the present day fascisms and integralisms and leads to an increase in violence and nuclear armament. Well, here you go introducing those paradoxes again. Who says that "human rights" is not a vital matter of imperial policy? "Human rights" -- as a political movement -- has never had a life independent of imperial objectives. Who says that "human rights" is really about helping humans? "Human Rights"=Death? <<This is why I am writing to you friends, you who live in the longstanding spirit of '68. To remind people of the paradoxes of their lives? I congratulate you!! Someone had to do it. <<I share your desire for a world in which the universal principal of human dignity triumphs over that of national sovereignty, substituting the suicidal principal of national self-determination (after all, what is a nation, if it is not an entity that defines itself on the basis of its own aggression?). But, the alternative to national sovereignty is empire and who ever told you that humanity is a priority for the empire? Not to mention that we are on the verge of inventing remarkable "genomic" technologies which will be able to replace humanity with something er, . . . new-and-improved. Do you really want the empire to make the rules on replacing humanity with something "better"? Do you really want the same people who can't see how they are threatening the entire world with this war to decide the genetic future of the human species? What's the margin for error on that calculation? <<(snip) That is when I realised that in this war, the guardians of Auschwitz speak two languages, one Serbian, the other English-French-Spanish-Geman-Italian. Just to be clear on this, Auschwitz was a "work" camp. "Work Makes You Free" hung over the entrance. Corporativist (i.e. fascist) Nazi Germany (actually Himmler's SS) needed "workers." So too, the corporativists behind this war. Fascism (i.e. corporativism) indeed speaks in many tongues. <<(snip) Thirty years ago, who would ever have thought that the grandchildren of Mao would one day become cannon fodder in an Anglo-American war? Anyone who grasped the paradoxes of that time, that's who. Indeed, if Maoists have ever been anything but cannon-fodder, I'd be really curious. If one is willing to grabble with the paradoxes, which you yourself have so expertly raised, one might at least avoid surprise the next time around. <<(snip) What can be done? The solution is the exact opposite of the war to defend borders. Borders between aggressive nationalisms, borders between the West and poorer countries, these are the taboos that must be destroyed if we wish to escape the nightmare of planetary civil war. Imperial rule #1: Divide and Conquer. (Read Carrol Quigley's "Hope and Tragedy" and then ponder what it means that Quigley was Clinton's mentor at Georgetown.) Wherever you see people who have lived together all their lives fighting brutally with each other, you might suspect that some imperial power is benefitting. Civil war is the only way that an empire can survive. Divide and conquer. The war of all against all. <<The solution is to open all borders. Solution for whom? The humans or the empire-rulers? This solution is worse than the problem! Paradoxically worse. Perversely worse. <<The West is conducting a war against the economical and demographical redistribution that global immigration demands. The redistribution of the wealth that is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of humanity and global class, can only take place through the liberal movement of citizens of poorer countries towards the wealthier ones. Boy, this is truly rich with paradox. Have you talked to the Sierra Club lately about immigration? How do you balance population growth with immigration with living-standards/living-wages with destruction of indigenous cultures with massive media/technological invasion of human minds? Haven't you heard that 25% or more of the population of the advanced technological world is slated to become the "Lost"? Permanently cut-off, permanently un-employable, permanently ready to slit your (or my) throat. <<(snip) Just as it has devastated the lives of men and women throughout the twentieth century, the tyranny of ideas may this time be responsible for the death of us all. >> Thanks for concluding so forcefully. Ideas -- if by this you mean "ideology" or fixed points-of-view -- continue to destroy and de-humanize, that's undisputable. Now we see it again, right before our eyes. So, you might consider getting beyond point-of-view. Grasp the paradoxes of the good-guy/bad-guy duality trap. For it is beyond these paradoxes where some small measure of understanding may lie. Yes, the truth may lie. Especially, those truths you never dare to question. Lie paradoxically, of course. Best, Mark Stahlman --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl