At the manif

 

Nobody knows what to do with Bardella’s name.

We all hate Macron. Last year’s protests against Macron stealing the living time of future generations – otherwise known as the “reform” of the pension system – were joyous, a sort of political charivari. For one thing, everyone knew that the vast majority was against the “reform.”

So Macron just thrust it down our throats. And the left responded by – fighting over who would be the fearless leader. Or something. All that time, all that marching, all those strikes – an utter failure.

But Bardella is a new villain, and not even one that we care deeply about. Le Pen, yes. Macron, double yes. But though there were many tries to make fun of Bardella’s name, none came up with anything interesting. Adam, when I came back, said easy: Bardello. My son, the slogan genius.

What to do with the contempt Macron instills in the average French heart? Well, the extreme right knew what to do. As Macron’s card is neither one nor the other – a reactionary economic policy with all the right rhetoric to celebrate women’s rights for the “other” side – they just smacked him around. And because Macron, while insensitive to the point of blindness to the left, is as sensitive as an easily tickled goof to the Valeurs actuelles crowd, they got the immigration “reform” they wanted, melting away all of the supposed difference between our paper mache Jupiter and the right. The rage against Macron, the failure of the left, and the National Front’s refusal to quit combined to create a brown France. As brown as Mussolini’s mIlice uniform.

So I went out to the manif for the new united popular front. It was, as always this year, gray and drizzly. I have a sort of dream vision of the thirties as an overcast decade that became even rainier at the end of “Casablanca” and then went into full storm mode until a mushroom cloud stood over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This was not the joyous flex of last spring’s demos. Because it is all so sudden, the majority of the signs were scrawled on industrial cardboard torn from boxes. But there was a lot of people – the press and police will say 75,000, the organizers 150, as is usual for left wing demos. We all looked very Vitamin D deficient out there. We’d all filed down these streets before. But after a while, the spirit of the demo picked up. It is one of the great advantages of having gay and trans advocates in the march that the spirit of masquerade and music visits their parts of the crowd – and that infects other parts.

Hard, though, to dance in the streets this time.

All reactions:

3Anna Kornbluh, Nataša Bašić and 1 other

Elections in France

 I might be breathing the fumes. But for once, I think the Left is actually on the right track. Glucksmann joining the LFI and the other factions of the left for a united front is very good news. And making this about repairing the damage Macron has made to France's social democracy, starting with taxing the wealthy and restoring the pension that was arbitrarily stolen from the people last year is an excellent platform. 

One suggestion, though. Everybody sees with their own eyes what investment in public services does. But they also see with their own eyes what they are taxed. I think it is time to send around, yearly, public audits telling the individual family what they have gotten from public services - and to make this very plan, per income group. It will turn out, always, that the state has given the most to the wealthiest. But the state, given the right administration, should give the most to the low and middle income groups. This should of course be sent out with tax information. It helps people decide where the holes in the system are. 

So, here we are. What are we gonna do about it. 

fascism is easy with an opposition like this

 The fascist tactic, classically, is the pounce. The fascist strategy is to see the fragility of the political establishment, which by its nature has nourished the most shortsighted and the most cowardly in its ranks.

Le Pen is not a particularly shrewd politician, but after Macron did her the favor of dissolving the national assembly, she is reeping the benefit of the strategy of normalization: the political establishment is dissolving before her eyes. She probably can't believe her luck. One goes back to the thirties, and the way the Social Democrats went from the establishment to the concentration camp in Germany. All the while its leaders making some vain and stupid stand or another, and refusing to turn to the working class, cause they are grody.
France, as Tucholsky remarked in 1928, was characterized, much more than Germany or the UK at the time, by the fact that the past was never passed - history was in the very cries in the street.
This was a shrewd insight. And what we are seeing in France - the cluelessness of the left, the vanity of the center, the cluelessness of the right, and the desire of the extreme-right - is like many periods in the past. Marx's 18th Brumaire is still pertinent to France.
That a man as shallow and vain as Macron is trying to make this all about him just adds to the comedy. His asskissers are floating a new idea from the Great Disrupter: what if he resigned? Then he could run again for a glorious third term.
Louis Napoleon he is not. This harebrained scheme, however, might be the best way for Le Pen to take the presidency in the next year. I can see Macron trying it, although I don't think even the ever pliable constitutional council would accept it.
Watching this happen here is sad sad sad - and instructive. It happened in the UK with the Tories. The political establishments in most countries are fat, complacent, and brain-dead. We will measure just how braindead as the Socialists, under Raphael Glucksman - who, for my sins, I voted for - pull away from the only thing that can save the left from disaster - a united front.
The only happy gleam I can see, at the moment, is that the fascists in Italy, though they triumphed in the Europeans, were closely followed by a re-invigorated leftwing party. But that is thin gruel.
Welcome to the Jungle, baby.

And here 's the song link.null

A Karen Chamisso Poem

 Thoughts at the Denfort-Rochereau Metro Stop

The lion prowls in marble

with no lion tamer props

no stool no whip

to lend a civilizing touch

We like our marble lion rampant

but we much prefer

a cage to mediate

our flesh and jaw encounters

of the first kind.

Here the whip is seen

- so why do we so breathlessly wish for

The tumbled stool, the sawdust bloodied?

The meatmarkets I have seen

Birdsong pulled a labyrinth from my ear.

The birds have their nests, the foxes their holes

who will live with me

in the maze?

Wind and unwind, turn and turn back.

The heroes were netted and dispatched.

I stepped on a crack and a dynasty died.

Their ghosts follow me to this address.

A centerfold is at the center of it all.

O land of cockayne, free drinks and pussy!

To every sailor and peasant, tonight:

Tenderloin, tenderloin, the sirens sing.

‘The gates and yssues of this town are kept with watch and wards.”

Ariadne’s blues echo in the common pissoir.

My tears, my tears flow riverwards.

Jack comes to my bed to bone ce soir.

-Karen Chamisso

The News from France

 I've written this too often to write it freshly, but here it is: Macron came into office as a sort of idol of the French media and establishment - he was the perfect neoliberal. Neoliberalism is not simply an economic phenomenon - it is a cultural one. It is a synthesis between the gains of the civil rights era and the dissolution of the institutions of the social democratic era. That synthesis operates to repress class struggle and promote civil rights theater - which is how some billionaire woman can become an exemplar of "feminism", while her janitor can become an exemplar of "reaction".

In France, Macron did the most cute neoliberal thing by lowering the tax paid by the wealthy while at the same time denouncing "colonialism". The former was an actual cost, while the later was theater all the way. And so we were off!

The Left, I thought, two years ago, was actually going to get off its ass. Unfortunately, no. The Left has its own theatrical aspect, and a memory of Mitterand that has led to the politics of the big chief - which is, alas, Melanchon. A man who, unfortunately, failed to make the grade and has since acted as a great impasse to the left actually doing something. Marching in the street and getting beat by cops is supposed to... lead to something. But it didn't. This is not the thirties or the fifties, but NUPES has very much acted as a sort of responder to Macron, and not a very effective one. Although the Left has tried to represent low income communities and the rights of immigrants, it has failed in its major task - to lead the return of the repressed, i.e. class, and to operationalize class struggle. The struggle over immigration is imminently class struggle - for how much outcry is there when the immigrant is rich? It is pretty simple to see that the game is what it has always been - squeeze the worker. Workers can see that with their own eyes. The Left has never convinced the people that they can see what the workers can see - and they have not succeeded in making the rotten system in which worker and immigrant are posed against each other the real issue.

They are not going to do that in the next month. Miracles don't happen.

So it looks like France is going to have a coalition gov, with Bardella as our prime minister, Macron as president.

You drift, you hit the rocks, you sink.

All reaction

the indefinitely postponed real

In the history of the professionalization of philosophy in the Anglo-sphere since the beginning of the Cold War, one notices that there are periodic crises of realism, in which its enemies are warded off in one way or another. In the division of intellectual labor that organizes the universities, the philosophers have taken up the vocation of defending the real. Still, there is the problem of what the real is and how it can be attacked in the first place. On the one hand, there is the inclination to make the real synonymous with what there is – the universe, say. And yet, few realists would say, I think, that the real began with the big bang. If the real is the universe, why not dispense with the term real as a superfluous and confusing lable? Yet one feels that the realists are uncomfortable thinking of the real as having a beginning or end, or having dark matter in it, or black holes. These things are real, but they aren’t in the real. Then there is the tendency to make the real the objective, as opposed to the subjective – thus a black hole is real and a thought is not. But again, this seems an oddly bent way to talk – how could a thought not be real? Is there a domain of irreality? And can I have a ticket to it, please? One way – cause I’m not coming back.

No doubt, the real – reality – is an odd term.

There is an excellent riff on the philosophical use of the real in Engel’s small book on Feuerbach. Engel’s suffers from the self-inflicted wound of never quite being real himself – his commentators will forever compare him to Marx, and take Engel’s writings to be either a translation or a distortion of Marx. This is, however, what Engels wanted. Inevitably, if one member of a dyad is to play the role of the sage, the other must be the fool. If one is the knight, the other is Sancho Panza. If one is Bruno, the other must be Bruno’s ass. And, indeed, Engels is the sensual man compared to the ever harassed Marx. Marx, at one point in his desperate attempt to change the world and not simply understand it, applied for and was refused a humble job as a railroad station accountant; Engels, on the other hand, was apparently a successful manager of a branch of his family’s business in Manchester. It was Engels who turned Marx on to the political economy, not vice versa. It is as if Sancho Panza loaned the romances of chivalry to Don Quixote. Otherwise, Engels seemed to see himself in this dyad.

Engels, who attended lectures at the University of Berlin as a soldier but never took a degree as a student, never imbibed that obsessive stylistic tic of Marx’s that Benjamin (in a different context) calls la culte de la blague. Often, in Marx’s writing, when the reader feels the roof being lifted off the house, we are in the presence of that tremendous, even prophetic sarcasm that makes Marx so pre-eminently a writer, a man of textual strategies. Engels likes a little Hegelian word play as much as the other guy, but when he tells a joke he is sure to label it a joke – not for him Marx’s habit of throwing all his genius into a joke, so that it becomes Satanically, sublimely not funny.

Engels begins his book on Feuerbach by discussing a well known maxim of Hegel’s: all that is real, is rational, and all that is rational, is real. He notes that his has been seen as Hegel’s blessing of Prussian despotism. But Engel’s disagrees. Those who quickly rush to make Hegel a bootlicker of the Prussian court forget that for Hegel, the real is the necessary. It is not an “… arbitrary regime measure – Hegel himself adduces a certain ‘tax adjustment’ that counts, without anything further, as real. But what is real shows itself in the last instance also as rational.

As well, what is necessary, shows itself as rational in the last instance; which, applied to the Prussian state at that time, means, according to the Hegelian proposition, only: this state is rational, that is, corresponds to reason, only in so far as it is necessary; and if it appears terrible to us, and yet, in spite of its badness, continues to exist, the badness of the government finds its justification and explanation in the badness of its subjects [Untertanen]. The Prussian of that time had the government they deserved.

Now, reality – according to Hegel – is not an attribute that a given social or political arrangement retains under all circumstances and times. On the contrary. The Roman republic was real, but so was the Roman empire that crushed it. The French monarchy of 1789 had become so unreal, that is, so robbed of all necessity, so irrational, that it had to be destroyed through the great Revolution, that Hegel always spoke of with the highest enthusiasm. Here, the Monarchy was the unreal, the revolution the real. And so it goes that in the course of development, all that was earlier real loses its necessity, its right to existence, its rationality; a new, lively reality steps into the place of the dying real – peacefully, when the old state of affairs is rational enough, without striving to be carried off by death, and violently, when it holds out against this necessity. And so the Hegelian proposition is inverted through Hegelian dialectic into its opposite: everything which is real in the domain of human history will become unreasonable with time, and thus is already according to its pre-determination irrational, is qualified by the irrational from then on; and everything, which is rational in the heads of men, is predetermined, to be real, may it contradict existing reality in ever so many ways. The proposition of the rationality of all the real is dissolved according to the rules of Hegel’s conceptual method into its other; the value of everything that exists is the fact that it dies. [Alles was besteht, ist wert, dass es zugrunde geht]"

I interpret this wonderfully uplifting, almost surrealist credo in terms of the sense of reality. And any newspaper reader of this century in the U.S. must have noticed the loss of this sense of reality in the Americanized part of the world. This loss comes through in two ways: a deep failure of the mechanisms of social cause and effect, and a profusion of symbols that become issues.

Pick any recent events, from immigration to Middle Eastern policy to the persistence of Trump to the age of Biden – one one feels the deep mechanism, the machine, has jumped the track. The real is a climate change that we are simply watching and participating in. The real is plutocracy, with all its trimmings: an utterly corrupt judiciary, a militarized police force, jails for the poor piker who is found with some crack and fines for the evil millionaire who has just invested in some offshore fund that coshares money with fentanyl mafiosos. As politics takes out of our reach the happiness of all, it supplants it with symbols that make for more and more interior rage and despair. Symbols define the politically possible, which nobody even pretends is a response to or solution for the politically impossible, that is, real social problems. These are the lineaments of dysfunction. They go deep. They sap the real. The earthquake is coming. How long will it tarry?

The zig zag life of the fabulous Maryse Choisy

 

There are some people who live lives of such zigs and zags that one feels, summing them up, that they could not have been real. These ziggers and zaggers seem to come out in the great decades – for instance, the 20s and the 60s of the twentieth century. I don’t really have to point out, do I, that the twenty first century still hasn’t had a great decade?

There are still many many undiscovered lives, undiscovered zig-zags, that ran through the 1920s. Among them, the fabulous Maryse Choisy.

She is forgotten now, for the most part. In the U.S., as far as I can tell, only her reportage on life in the brothels (she’d taken a job as a manager in a famous maison close, I believe the Sphinx), A month with the girls, has been translated. Translated in 1960. The book came out in 1929 came out. But this is a bullet point of her life up to then:

- become one of the first women at Oxford to take away a degree in Sanskrit

-moved to India and taught Sanskrit

- moved to Vienna to become a psychoanalyst with Freud. Disagreed with Freud

-returned to France and became a lion tamer

- became a reporter – in the great reporter tradition. After reporting on brothels, she went to Mount Athos and reported on monks. Closed societies, if you will.

This is quite the life. She went on to become a novelist, report regularly on politics and finance, get a degree in psychoanalysis in the United States, create the psychoanalytic journal Psyche,  fall under the influence of Teilhard de Chardin, become a guru, wrote about feminism in the 1970s and voyaged to Tibet for Le Monde to write a series of article about the Dalai Llama.

I’m especially impressed with the part where, arguing with Freud, she returned to France and took some circus training to become a lion tamer. Take that, Wilhelm Reich! She wrote an account of lion taming for Gringoire (this was before Gringoire became the infamous anti-semitic porn sheet). 4 September 1931 was a coup issue for the Gringoire. A story by Marcel Ayme. A column by G. de Pawlowski, Gaston Pawlowski, known to scifi buffs for his Voyage to the Land of the Fourth Dimension. And Choisy’s memoire of working in a “foire menagerie” – a traveling circus zoo.

This is how she begins (oh autofictional muses, gather round!):

“I appeared with my legs naked, a bit of cocotterie, an evening dress that was very low cut, in crepe Georgette. The least paw sweep would be noticeable on my skin. My robe was a bit long. Frank Henry claimed that I needed a train, that would go well with the supple grace of the panthers. Me, I am of the short skirt generation. But as long as, in closing the door behind me, I didn’t get it caught in anything. As long as, in dodging a panther’s leap, my feet didn’t get entangled in the train, and my nose in the sand. Panthers are like men: they’ll fall on you when you are down.  As long as… I advanced three steps. Took six steps backwards. Panther on my right. Stool on my left. “

This is the voice of a woman who is only scared of what she chooses to be scared of. That is the thing with zigzagging – you get tired, but you find that fear is not something that need surprise you – you can surprise it. Scare yourself.

The zig zag life is opposed, in its very essence, to the credentialed life. Later, when Choisy chose to become a psychoanalyst, and even found one of the big psychoanalytic journals, she had an advantage: she’d been breathed on by the big cats.

Oh, as a ps - I found a documentary has been made of Un mois avec des filles. HereHere.

 

 

 

The rain in Paris

 

I as a reader in this twenty first century am bonded to the text by the lesser boredom of the text in contrast with the greater boredom outside the text of other things to read or even, horrors, to do. It is in the balance of boredoms that this little superannuated smartass, this me, shares with the Zeitgeist of other readers of newspapers and magazines and social media and even sometimes print in what used to be called, for the yucks, the meat-osphere. Meat, humans that is, on one side, silicon on the other.

Ennui was once the kind of thing we find in the great Mallarme line, “La chair est triste, hélas ! et j'ai lu tous les livres.”  

But some say the age of all the books has passed. I don't believe it. But I do believe that ennui results from something like a reading or looking too long. The optical equipment sifts through the same content, or content that begins to seem the same, from the office job to the commute, from the same old dinner to the same old tv series. Ennui, in Paris this spring, was the weather. I call it spring because that is the official title of this time between March and June, but a winterish must never really left Paris for the first half of the year. The number of days it rained was an amazing 3,000,000, 000 – or maybe that is just what it seemed like. When I finally cast off my winter coat, about three weeks ago, I quickly had to rethink my decision.

A. tells me that they predict a heat wave soon. So from winter mush we will be tipped into New Delhi hell.

The great Paris poem about rain is Baudelaire’s fourth Spleen poem, which begins:

« Je suis comme le roi d'un pays pluvieux,
Riche, mais impuissant, jeune et pourtant très vieux,
Qui, de ses précepteurs méprisant les courbettes,
S'ennuie avec ses chiens comme avec d'autres bêtes. »

It occurred to me that this poem must reflect a rainy season in Paris, some time in the 1850s when it was written. I have not found evidence for the date of the composition, so I cannot connect it, exactly, in all of its Poe funk, with something like our non-spring. However, it does seem like 1852 stands out as a rainy year. It was the year that a man named Vener, who wrote little articles for Le Corsair, the paper Baudelaire contributed to when it was called Le Corsair By

-Satan in 1847. It was edited, then, by a man named LePoitevan, who wanted to fill it with 40 to 60 line little essayettes. He called them vade retor.

By 1852, much ink and blood had gone under the bridge, including a revolution and a coup d’etat which gave France another Napoleon for “emperor”. The Corsaire was still published, and they still favored the vade retor, or what would be called the chronicle. Among their house writers was a hardworking man named Vener.  On June 9, 1852, his little piece was entitled: It rains. It is a clever bit of handwork, and it makes me think of Baudelaire – Benjamin was right to see Baudelaire as both a poet and an atmosphere, a general sensibility among writers. He begins by comparing different types of rain to different types of government: “ – when water falss with that monotone regularity that tells us that the whole sky is taken; it is like a bad government; one sadly awaits, with pain, without hope, for a near end; it seems like it will continue forever.”

Vener makes the rain the subject of the article that is not the article he should be writing – he should be writing “reflections on the budget, on Belgium, on the Empire, on the new state of France; impossible! The rain is against it.

It imprisons my will, it paralyzes my spirit, it conquers me by a negative force, it annihilates me; it might be said that its secret power washes away ideas, words, color, images!”

I rather agree. The rain, this non-season, has kept me inside our apartment. I lie on the couch. I sit at the table. I type to no avail, I read to no avail, I age to no avail.

All of this non-availing, though, is broken by one pleasant day, one spring day, one glimpse of sunlight on the plants on the terrace, one breath of fresh breeze running its fingers over the leafery in the pots. And that spring day is today!

I could be king of infinite space, today.

Absolutely: the novel

 

Certain words are novels – and not just novels, but state of the nation novels, U.S.A. novels.

Absolutely, for instance. Exciting or excited.

Actually.

 

Absolutely that became fixed as a certain sound in my ear years ago. I was living in Santa Fe and, for a time, writing lyrics for a band. The singer would say, absolutely, a lot. The singer was a sweet woman, who couldn’t hold a tune – you could glue it to her tongue and she would still mess it up.

So we would go through the song and she would be asked if she heard it, and she would say: “absolutely”.

 

Like so much in the U.S.A, the word came out of some combo of tv, movies, music and coolhunting. And it ended up in business school.

 

One could probably track it through trendy novels. It begins as a sort of Britishy complement – in phrases like, say, absolutely stunning. It occurs in Less than Zero – a marker of the eighties if there ever was one – both as an affirmative and a complement. But only once as the former. Checking into seventies zeitgeist novels – In Alison Lurie, it occurs in the form of “absolutely sure” or “absolutely necessary” – holding on as a modifier, and not pushing aside the “sure” to star by itself.

 

Ann Beattie, whose signature method as a short story writer and novelist in the seventies was to keep as close as possible to the oral tics of the time, used absolutely the way Alice Lurie did. She only introduced absolutely, as a single word, after the eighties.

 

These are not definitive proofs of the origin of the bogus absolutely, but I’d like to coordinate its mission creep with the “morning in America” that was the Reagan era – an era in which the bogus made a comeback, from Wall Street to the shores of Nicaragua.

Of course, this mutation is not unrelated to other mutations abroad in the land – for instance, the systematic skinning of the working class, from their place in the popular arts to the dignity to their paychecks. “Sure”, the older Americanism,  was both the extended hand and a word to be spoken out of the side of the mouth by private dicks and mobsters. Sure was off the farm – as was the population, draining into Detroit and Chicago and Los Angeles and Cleveland, making steel in Youngstown and Pittsburg, waging labor war in Flint. Sure was familiar with numbers runners and the overflowing toilets in neighborhood taverns on Friday night. Sure had all beef hotdogs in its teeth and the ball game on the radio. Sure was Rabbit, especially when yes means no, as in “sure sure.” A doubling that allows Rabbit to hop away from his responsibilities in Rabbit Run.

 

Absolutely is Rabbit in his desuetude, Rabbit in Florida, Rabbit self-pitying in the strip club. Absolutely is the fated, that is, planned erosion of the manufacturing sector. Absolutely is the relentless rise of the service sector. Absolutely is waitresses setting out jauntily to make money while going to college and ending up three jobbing it to make payments on the college loan.  Absolutely is the cool music played at Starbucks. Absolutely is emotional labor, while emotional surplus value is hauled off to be plasticized in the cultural industries. But absolutely never reaches into the now dominent upper reaches, who invaded every crannie of the popular arts in the U.S.A. and made it a mirror of their own vanity. Absolutely is said to them. They never say it back. Instead, they say things like, I’ll have the Chilean sea bass.

 

I sure hate what absolutely did to the States.

 

Genius is primarily egalitarian: Emerson and the newspapers

 

 I read the newspapers like Don Quixote read his romances, fulmination and prophecies race through my brain and come out of my fingertips, perched on the keyboard, and I know that I am behind, utterly behind on everything in my life, that what I do is plunge into what avails not and what I don’t do is what does avail and must avail and this is my mortal sin, and then the night is here, quicker than I expect it to be, always.

With this attitude towards the newspapers, I have long held that not enough is made of the parallel between the literary culture of the moderns, from the 1700s on, and the newspapers, which have been the great angels of Chronos during this same period of time. Even now, as newspapers dwindle down like a pencil too often sharpened, we see the form find its home and bearings on the internet and the internet swell with it.

                                                               1

I like to think of certain coincidences. Emerson, writing about the London Times, in English Traits: “There is no corner and no night.” Emerson happened to visit the Continent, and especially England, in the wonderful and terrible year, 1848. Year of the Communist Manifesto, of the French revolution, which Emerson celebrates in his journal – seeing that this time it is about “socialism”. He notes that Carlyle, at that point still his friend, never read the newspapers until the Revolution broke out.

And after 1848, Marx, in England, becomes the great European correspondent for Emerson’s sometimes friend, Horace Greeley, whose newspaper, The New York Tribune, was the great American answer to the Times. Emerson and Greeley met on the lecture circuit. In 1851, the New York Tribune started publishing articles by the man the paper called “one of the clearest and most vigorous writers that country has produced—no matter what may be the judgment of the critical upon his public opinions in the sphere of political and social philosophy.”

At the time, Greeley was a Fourierist.

Emerson wrote about Fourier in an article in Margaret Fuller’s The Dial:

“We had lately an opportunity of learning something of these Socialists and their theory from the indefatigable apostle of the sect in New York, Albert Brisbane. Mr. Brisbane pushes his doctrine with all the force of memory, talent, honest faith, and importunacy. As we listened to his exposition, it appeared to us the sublime of mechanical philosophy; for the system was the perfection of arrangement and contrivance. The force of arrangement could no farther go. The merit of the plan was that it was a system; that it had not the partiality and hint-and-fragment character of most popular schemes, but was coherent and comprehensive of facts to a wonderful degree. It was not daunted by distance, or magnitude, or remoteness of any sort, but strode about nature with a giant's step, and skipped no fact, but wove its large Ptolemaic web of cycle and epicycle, of phalanx and phalanstery, with laudable assiduity. Mechanics were pushed so far as fairly to meet spiritualism. One could not but be struck with strange coincidences betwixt Fourier and Swedenborg. Genius hitherto has been shamefully misapplied, a mere trifler.”

                                                           2.

I have not found any hint in Emerson that Marx had crossed his intellectual path – although surely he read some of his articles in the Tribune. But the coupling of Fourier and Swedenberg predicts, mystically, the messianic Marxism of Bloch and Benjamin, which crosses Marxism with Klee’s angels.

There is something else in Emerson’s note on Fourier that is consistent with his notion of the democratic theme that runs through the newspaper form: the notion of an egalitarianism founded upon genius.

Our feeling was, that Fourier had skipped no fact but one, namely, Life. He treats man as a plastic thing, something that may be put up or down, ripened or retarded, moulded, polished, made into solid, or fluid, or gas, at the will of the leader; or, perhaps, as a vegetable, from which, though now a poor crab, a very good peach can by manure and exposure be in time produced, but skips the faculty of life, which spawns and scorns system and system-makers, which eludes all conditions, which makes or supplants a thousand phalanxes and New-Harmonies with each pulsation. There is an order in which in a sound mind the faculties always appear, and which, according to the strength of the individual, they seek to realize in the surrounding world. The value of Fourier's system is that it is a statement of such an order externized, or carried outward into its correspondence in facts. The mistake is, that this particular order and series is to be imposed by force of preaching and votes on all men, and carried into rigid execution. But what is true and good must not only be begun by life, but must be conducted to its issues by life. … nay, that it would be better to say, let us be lovers and servants of that which is just; and straightway every man becomes a centre of a holy and beneficent republic, which he sees to include all men in its law, like that of Plato, and of Christ. Before such a man the whole world becomes Fourierized or Christized or humanized…”

                                                                        3.

I love it when Emerson just rides. 

But to break back into thought from such motion and rhetorical glory - the newspaper or its form plays a central role in Emerson's intuition that genius is inherently egalitarian - that is, our private lights are, above all, new lights, new courses in the world marked by our ever anonymous and gigantic particularity. I am the we. And as this we, I must go back to the tabloid as Antaeus had to go back to the earth. It is my strength..

COLLECTING, CULTURAL HISTORY, FETISHISM

 

“In brief, cultural history only represents a surface strike against the insight [of historicism], but not that of dialectics. For it lacks the destructive moment, which certifies dialectical thinking, as well as  the experience of the dialectic thinker. It means to increase the treasures that weigh on the back of mankind. But it doesn’t give humanity the power to shake this off, in order to take them in its hands. This is true as well of the socialist educational work at the turn of the century, which took cultural history as its guiding star.”

This passage from Benjamin’s essay on Eduard Fuchs came to my mind as I was reading Mel Gordon’s Horizontal Collaboration, his book about the erotic culture of Paris, which is meant, I think, to be paired with his earlier (cult) book about the erotic culture of Weimar Germany.

Like Fuchs, Gordon is a collector. Nothing brings together cultural history, fetishism and a certain sense of hidden forces like abundantly illustrated books concerning the vintage wanks of yesteryear. But Gordon utterly lacks a dialectical mindset. For him, pleasure is a unified property – not something divided between consumer and worker. Thus, he plunges into the “happy” world of Parisian brothels and comes up with the anecdotes, which take the place of any ethnology.

This is the blind spot of the fetishism that motivates pilling up the “treasures”, whether of cheesecake photos or art objects of a higher order – objects that are so often rooted, in the avant garde visual and literary culture of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, in the same atmosphere of brothels and dance clubs whose photos, placards and anecdotes spill out over Gordon’s pages – but never gets around to the moral intellectual shudder that will free us from these things, so that we can recognize them.

The erotic life, here, is utterly commercial. From the brothel fuck to the photographer to the spectator – for there was as much a market for spectacle as there was for tactile sex – “life” is restricted to what is outside of “normal life”.

In the end, in the late 1960s, the identification of the erotic with a certain marginal spectacle dissolved before the feminist critique, which correctly identified pleasure as a heterogenous and often exploitative property of “liberation.” The revolutionary moment, in the “sexual revolution”, was all too non-dialectical. It was a revolution in the chains of a very bourgeois positivism.

And don’t we all, generation after generation, bear the marks of that lie? We still have not found the open sesame that will give us, at the heart of normativity itself, our happiness back. Instead, we make our separate treaties. It is this, I think, that has disempowered the avant garde in my lifetime.

Biden's foreign policy: let's bet everything on authoritarianism!

 

And watch it all slip away
(Por fin se va acabar)
Or leave a garden for your kids to play
(Jamás van a alcanzar)

 --- The Black Angels, El JardinThe Black Angels, El Jardin

American foreign policy inhabits the same paradox that American domestic policy lives in: what does it mean to be a democracy?

During the Cold War period, the paradox, at least on the foreign policy side, was simplified by the idea that whatever was anti-communist was democratic. This was, of course, technically not true: from Nazi Germany to the Pinochet’s Chili, from Syngman Rhee’s South Korea to Thieu’s South Vietnam, the United States chose authoritarian states over any possible democratic alternative.

This led to millions of deaths around the world.

At the end of the Cold War, however, there was a sense in the American foreign policy establishment that perhaps the U.S. could be an interventionist liberal power. Weighing in on the side of democracy. The last shreds of this solution were dissolved during the Bush regime. Although we rhetorically wanted “democracy” in the occupied state of Iraq, it turns out that we wanted it on our terms, with no interference from the Iraqi population.

We now seem, under Biden, to be reconstructing a Cold War foreign policy that is even more contradictory than the one forged under anti-communism. Here, democracy is the equivalent of being pro-Israel, no matter what Israel does.

The only way any state in the Middle East, or North Africa, or Central Asia can sustain that as a policy if for that state to be firmly under the thumb of a dictator – be it Sisi in Egypt or the House of Saud or Jordan’s “parliamentary” mock democracy. The U.S. policy is entirely dependent, under Biden, on maintaining and strengthening these authoritarian powers.

This is the kind of paradox that will corrode Biden’s message in the current election: the message that this is an election of “democracy” against Trump’s authoritarianism. It is pretty simple to see that this message relies, in Biden’s politics, on a limit: democracy cannot be entrusted to people like, say, the Jordanians. This tacit principle makes a mockery of Biden’s domestic view, that no persons because of race creed or gender should be denied full civil rights.

Meanwhile authoritarians elsewhere have recognized that whether Biden or Trump is elected, they have a friend in Washington. In Europe, the far right has become absolutely loyal to Israel for two reasons: the historical antisemitic psychopathology, out of which these parties spring, had one great success, from the antisemitic point of view: the murder of six million European Jews. That means practically that in a place like the Netherlands, where the Nazis murdered three quarters of the Jewish community, Jews now form only a tiny percentage of the population – around 50,000 in a total population of 17 million. In comparison, the Muslim population – immigrants mostly from Netherland’s colonies – constitute around a million. The Far Right under Geert Wilders, which is the coalition partner in the Netherlands, has decided to use a new tactic – attacking the Moslem population as antisemitic. That the ideological and real ancestors of Wilders collaborated with the Nazis is now easy to apologize for – with a grin, of course. Dutch Jews do have reasons to fear increasing antisemitism among the Islamic population, as that population absorbs the idea that opposing Israel is antisemitism.

In essence, the far-right part of Europe has been given a gift by the right in Israel and its biapartisan allies in the U.S. Thus, a program that was condemned in the 1990s in the war in Yugoslavia – the mass murder of Bosnian Muslims – has now become less criminal, and more understandable. Those Muslims were antisemitic! Thus, nobody blinks when Netanyahu teams up with Orban to demonize the Hungarian Jew Soros.

Bad times are coming, no matter who is elected president in the U.S.

The new economy is simply a ratio

 

The New Economy that came into being in the nineties names, really, a ratio – that is, the rise in the ratio between price and earnings. Just as the world starts, in the Upanishads, with the first man, Pragapati, floating in a golden egg that he has somehow fertilized himself, so too do we find our plutocrats floating in golden eggs made out of financial instruments which exist solely in order that plutocrats can grow the most enormous golden eggs the world has ever seen.

In an early era – in the Progressive era – the p/e ratio had another name: overcapitalization. And instead of celebrating an economic mechanism whereby speculators are allowed and encouraged to treat themselves to stunning windfalls, the Progessives justly saw overcapitalization as waste and fraud.

Lawrence Mitchell, in The Speculation Economy, has, I think correctly, seen the first two decades of the 20th century in America as the period in which the limits of American progressive politics – and by extension, the limits of anti-corporationism in the West – were drawn and hardened. By 1920, the attempt to reform the stock market from the root had failed.

The high point of the reform effort came in 1911. In that year, the House of Representatives passed a bill a bill that was narrowly turned down in the Senate, S. 232. S. 232 would not only have required federal incorporation of all interstate businesses. Here’s Mitchell’s description of it:

“It would have replaced traditional state corporate finance law by preventing companies from issuing “new stock” for more than the cash value of their assets, addressing both traditional antitrust concerns and newer worries about the stability of the stock market by preventing overcapitalization. But it would have done much more.

S. 232 was designed to restore industry to its primary role in American business, subjugating finance to its service. It would have directed the proceeds of securities issues to industrial progress by preventing corporations from issuing stock except “for the purpose of enlarging or extending the business of such corporation or for improvements or betterments”, and only with the permission of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Corporations would only be permitted to issue stock to finance revenue-generating industrial activities rather than finance the ambitions of sellers and promoters. … S. 232 would have restored the industrial business model to American corporate capitalism and prevented the spread of the finance combination from continuing it dominance of American industry.” (137)

Martin Sklar, in The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, summarized the spirit of the drafts prepared during Theodore Roosevelt’s administration that stood in the background of the bill’s eventual configuration in this way: ‘whenever the amount of outstanding stock should exceed the value of assets, the secretary would require the corporation to call in all stock and issue new stock in lieu thereof in an amount not exceeding the value of assets, and each stockholder would be required to surrender the old stock and receive the new issue in an amount proportionate to the old holdings.”

I’ve already manifested my manifesto for a new Soviet version of 21st century capitalism – one that destroys the corporate form and replaces it with hundreds of thousands of small scale enterprises in flexible cooperative structures. It does not overturn capitalism, but it does radically turn capitalism around. The limitation of both the corporation and the state is a kind of capitalism with a human face – which is much more radical than where ‘socialism’ is at the moment. For this kind of harmony of opposites, of cooperation and competition, to really work, the speculative economy would have to be radically subordinated to production. The pleasure palace of the oligarchs, the four hundred trillion dollar derivatives structure that burdens the earth (even as it actually does not exist – truly, an extreme case of economic neuroses), will have to be burnt to the ground. From a historical point of view, instead of a prescriptive one, however: one has to marvel at what the railroad companies wrought.  Most studies of railroads concentrate on their physical structure, and their role in transport. But if you look at financial history in the U.S., you find that railroads basically invented the modern stock market. By overcapitalizing far beyond the needs of stock and expansion, and by being the model that shaped the constitution of interstate businesses, they forged the stock market as an instrument of overcapitalization that it has since become. In the first decade of the twentieth century, state attorney generals, elected by populists, tried to make railroad companies adhere to their contractual obligations under state law. Well, that took state's rights too far, and was overruled by the Federal government. The Scotus, which piously devolved the rights of women over their own bodies to the states, would shriek with horror if the states took up the right to regulate the interstate commerce that comes through it. There is a limit to every reactionary thing, after all! Common sense, among the plutocrats, has agreed to this. And who are we to tell the rich assholes no?