By: Nate

Nate — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:14:00 +0000

On the problems and movements thing, I think that’s right – a problem’s the grit that the pearl forms around. But it’s not an objective thing so much as subjective, an operation of making something a problem. Hence those moments when folk get radicalized and are like “everything is shit! I’ve been lied to my whole life by everyone!” Those folk are still learning how to control the volume or scope of the making-something-a-problem function.

By: brian

brian — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 09:50:00 +0000

Good point well put… One thing to consider is the relation between extensive and intensive. Is it possible for social movements (ugh, horrible term, but I’m using it loosely) to express themselves in a way that is not extensive? In a way, Laclau may be right: maybe demands are the foundation of politics (of course that’s not a reason to make demands — instead we should abolish politics). Maybe there's something ineffable about movement, which means any attempt to express it always falls into an extensive register. I’m not making judgments here, but it helps us understand the way that Make Poverty History was able to usurp (=capture) much of what Dissent was doing in Gleneagles last year. The same thing is now happening — on the plane(e) of organisation — with climate change.

Comments on: Leeds, London, Rome, Berlin; we shall fight and we shall win.

By: Nate

By: brian