Comments on: Bash the Rich

By: Nate

Nate — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:07:00 +0000

“events or processes of ‘consolidation’ or ‘accretion’ — jobs, mortgage, kids — may seem at first to produce great density, and even closure. But increase the magnification a little and everything may open up again.” It’s dialectics, innit? In Holloway’s sense.

By: Keir

Keir — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:22:00 +0000

No Dave, I think Brain was right the first time. Kids are little shits.

By: David

David — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:57:00 +0000

I feel compelled to inject some science into this heady mix of Boneist populism and Deleuzian philosophy. The ‘rich tapestry’ stuff made me think of fractals such as the famous Mandelbrot set. (See, e.g. http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.html.)
If you look at a picture of the fractal, it appears to be this mixture of spaces of dense detail and spaces of great openness. But fractals are characterised by the property of ‘self-similarity’ at different scales. So, as you zoom in on any point, these patterns are repeated. So zoom in on some area of great density, say, and suddenly… everything opens up!

So these events or processes of ‘consolidation’ or ‘accretion’ — jobs, mortgage, kids — may seem at first to produce great density, and even closure. But increase the magnification a little and everything may open up again. Kids, for example, may teach us how to live more freely, without inhibitions. A job may provide the money to fund struggle or other projects of ‘self-valorisation’. And having a house may actually make it easier to go off and travel say, ‘cos you know you have something to come back to.

By: brian

brian — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:52:00 +0000

Totally. I didn’t mean to suggest that accretion or consolidation (nicer term by the way) was bad. Having kids, for example, is just part of weaving an ever-richer tapestry, building up layer upon layer, an adventure in folding and doubling, a making of world(s)… Mind you, it didn’t facking feel like that at breakfast this morning – no war but the porridge war, I tell ya

By: Keir

Keir — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:40:00 +0000

Did I not fucking tell ya son. That's why I was banging on about it at that writing meeting. Bone has written a fucking great book. I hope they market it alongside all the football hooligan stuff and not in the political theory section. He could sell thousands. Actually the political theory in the book is so much better than you might imagine but of course with Bone it's the all about using style to the create the affect which can connect up heterogeneous elements, innit. (Please read above paragraph in Sarf London accent).

Fantastic post by the way. The image of slowing down due to accretion of kids, mortgages, etc, is spot on. It makes me think of trying to walk to the kitchen with a kid hanging on to your leg (which happens all the time in my house).

But of course fluidity isn't always the most productive thing. When we think about kids as accretion they are also about creating a richer, more consistent substance out of our lives. One with new traits and possibilities. The problem is all the rigid strata around parenthood, including mortgages.

We can also think about rented or bought social centres as accretion. As strata around which people, process, refrains stick and consolidate into a substance with new possibilities. The important point is being able to move from the extensive to the intensive.

Perhaps we can also see the formation of the Class War Federation as a productive stratification at a certain point. Just look at Bones frustrations with the absolute fluidity of the early '80's and the difficulties getting things done.

It's great the way the post moves 'seamlessly' from Ian Bone to ontological excess but it does remind us why we ended up knee deep in Deleuze, because we needed resources to escape from the aporias of Class War. Which is why your insight about stuntism is so good. Philosophy can be used to re-cast problems, although practice has to solve them.