instructions pour gens d'affaires 1

The double change brought about under capitalism – the creation of wage labor under the regime of industrialization and the introduction of a revamped and quantitatively huge sphere of circulation under the regime of consumerism – is one that particularly effects the place of the clerk. The fictional commodities of land and labor, and the international trade in everyday household and psychoactive commodities – sugar, chocolate, alcohol, coffee - that underlay the great transformation required a new system of description and calculation that opened up a new vocational form – and into that form came the clerk. When Marx speaks of the way the bourgeois economists invert the processes that constitute the nature of the commodity so that it seems like the commodity comes first and constitutes the unsurpassable horizon of the world, what he is really talking about is the codification of the economy from the point of view of its managers in the sphere of circulation – for them, gazing at the world through their maps, spread sheets, instructions, and sales, the exterior world really does seem to be a price-driven market system, a great dualism between demand and supply.

In 1770, a Bordeaux lawyer named Joseph Rousselle published a how to book on management: “Instructions pour les seigneurs et leurs gens d'affaires”. The book divides into what the seigneur should look for in a manager – a gen d’affair – and what the manager should do. Among the latter, listed in the table of contents, is: “state of the domestics, properties and officials on the lands; archives of the seigneur and the state of his property; debts and charges; general knowledge of the lands; archives of the lands; active and passive transfers concerning the fiefs”; etc.
Rousselle begins the book by sounding a note of urgency: “Prudence demands that they [the seigneurs] found their principle existence on their patrimonial properties; yet the greater part of these properties are so badly guided, so badly administered, there reigns such abuses, that the Seigneurs lose considerably, be it by infidelity, be it by the incapacity of their agents.” (3)
What Rousselle is complaining about here has a long reach: we see this among the reformers in England and the novelists in Russia in the 19th century. Eventually, this story is about the end of the ancien regime – but as Thomas Mann puts it in Doctor Faustus, that regime didn’t wholly end until 1917 – until World War I.

In Rousselle’s time, certain among the corps of gens d’affaires were philosophes – including perhaps the most influential, Rousseau.

...
One can too easily make it seem that production and circulation are spheres that do not intersect because they are spheres that must be separated analytically and have different structures. In reality, these spheres interpenetrate: from the factory to the fashion show, production and circulation are interlocking parts of one whole. It is that interpenetration which gives to class its everyday value as something performed in routines – while everyday class differences are then registered in income differentials, and social positioning. In effect, one of the narratives Marx unfolds, in the Grundrisse and then in Capital, concerns the production of different forms of rationality that correspond to class strategies that dominate in the sphere of circulation and in the sphere of production.

There’s a striking passage in Plutarch’s essay on the Fortune of the Romans in which he considers the meaning of the fact that the Romans built a temple to Fortune centuries before they built a temple to any of the virtues. In a sense, this is a metaphor for the whole pre-capitalist economy in Europe from the time of the Romans to the early modern age. All the virtues – the province of the philosopher, the scientist, the clerk – were subordinate to the warrior class, who saw in Fortune the rationality of the system of war. However, the warriors couldn’t actually live on war – they lived on treasure, they lived on the slavery of those planted on the lands they conquered or were rewarded. Fortune, which provided that final margin which balanced the battle, sealed the alliance of the warrior caste and the Gods. The slave – the man who ‘owed’ his life to his conqueror, redeeming that debt, as David Graeber shows in his Debt: the first 5,000 years, by dedicating his life to enriching the man who spared it. Not, of course, that the slave volunteered for this fate, but along with physically direct coercion there came a morale of defeat.

It would be a huge mistake to equate the slave economy of the Ancients and the economy of the Middle Ages. The Christians, for good reason, fought against Fortune, and it wasn’t simply because Fortune was diabolic – it was because Fortune pitted itself, at the deepest level, against the virtues.

our debt problem

In important ways, the D.C. drone drone drone about deficits and debt is right. Unfortunately, they have targeted the wrong debt. It isn't the government's debt that is the problem: it is the people's debt.

Unfortunately, the government could have chosen to do something radical about debt in 2009 and it didn't. No, I don't mean that we could have balanced the budget in D.C. - we could have helped balance the budget in the U.S.

Instead of loaning, at 1 percent, 16 trillion dollars to the American people, which would have effectively re-liquidated every American household, this is what the Federal Reserve - which is the government - did: it chose to loan that 16 trillion to the banks in the 2008-2010 period. What was the beneficial effect of this policy? It saved the banks. What does that mean? The government loans money to banks at 1 percent or below, so the banks can loan money to businesses, people and the government at from 2 percent to 14 percent (for you lucky credit card holders).
What does this mean? It means that the investment class was given a free ride, while the vast majority of people - for whom the economy exists - were given an elbow in the mouth.
Here is what debt politics should be about: our debts. A combination of policies to radically crush private debt while creating a large enough deficit to counter-act the private sector's collapse of demand for labor - for instance, by simply hiring every unemployed person - would have taken us out of the Great Recession by now.

As I have pointed out, will point out, and will probably mumble on my deathbed, the policies and politics of our epoch are determined by the curious fact that we have left the wealth of the wealthy out of the equation. We pretend that we can't afford to do things that we could do in the fifties or sixties, when we were much poorer. We actually can. However, to do so we would cut deeply into the wealth of the wealthiest, who are the investor class who massively benefited by the Government's welfare for banks scheme, and who would not benefit from liquidated the debt bondage in which the mass of Americans are held - quite the contrary.

Let's not end on an exasperated note. Let's end as one ends a love letter. This love letter is to the Occupy Wall Street people. You are right. Think big. Operating in the interests of the majority, you will either win now or win later, but you will win. The elites, the pluto-parties that monopolize our politics at the moment, are not so different from the horrific and racist parties that dominated the political scene in America in 1900. Don't worry that we are too senile as a nation, have filled our veins too full of shit and our heads too full of trivia, to live. That old nation will die, in fact is in its death throes, but a new one will arise.

the boytoy "left"

I have read with amazement the news about the speeches at the Labour conference that is going on this week. Labour has discovered its niche in the political sphere, apparently: support for ‘deficit reduction”, i.e. mass employment and wage deflation, combined with a strong on crime stance. Thus, the silent majority may huddle in their homes waiting for the layoff slip or the round of unaffordable bills, but at least they can have the satisfaction of seeing the noisy unemployed person in the house next door put out in the street.

This is what the supposed “Left” has come to.

Clearly, the Blairist poobahs that have reformed Labour have no time for the economic sillyness of their forefathers. Someone like Bevin, surveying the current scene, would have summed up the deficit debate very simply: we will cure deficits by curing unemployment and stimulating higher wages. In the interim, we will consider nationalizing the bond markets if they can’t do a better job of pricing the risk in bonds. And in the future, we will consider whether the idea of a private bond market for state finance isn’t altogether archaic.

It bears repeating, as nobody repeats it: bond traders work for financial institutions, banks, mutual funds, hedge funds, etc. Financial institutions were, worldwide, floated by 16 trillion dollars in emergency funds by the Federal Reserve. Instead of loaning sixteen trillion dollars to the working class – to those making below 100 thousand dollars – in the U.S., through easily created modalities (the Post Office, anyone), the Fed chose to continue a system that can’t clear. Let’s say this again: cant clear. It can’t clear because clearing would cause mutual collapse on all sides. The EU and various European governments, on a lesser scale, also propped up the financial system, which then turns around and loans to the European governments through buying bonds, which are then, through the auctioning system, repriced – in effect, the interest rates the bonds pay are increased. What we have here is obviously a vicious circle of borrowing, A “loaning” at .05 percent to B, which then loans at 2 percent to A - which exists only partly to do what the state and private financial enterprise are supposed to do – guard the well being of the population and supply capital for private enterprises and credit for consumers – and majorly to insure the fortunes of the richest. Another way of saying this is: we are paying the rich to sit on our faces.

Labour’s boytoys want us to be outraged because – as the rich sit on our faces, somebody with dreadlocks or a dyed Mohawk has moved into the apartment down the street!

Trivia, timewasting, and a plutocratic ideology in which the leaders of a party formerly representing the workers has drowned themselves has now become the U.K’s opposition party. Really.

Stamp out the parties.

“The sweetest sleep and fairest-boding dreams
That ever ent'red in a drowsy head
Have I since your departure had, my lords.
Methought their souls whose bodies Richard murder'd
Came to my tent and cried on victory.
I promise you my soul is very jocund
In the remembrance of so fair a dream.”

the battle and the market: geneology of unintended consequences, two

The battle and the market

“Might one, then … bring on the Romans once more as witnesses in behalf of Fortune, on the ground that they assigned more to Fortune than to Virtue? At least, it was only recently and after many years that Scipio Numantinus built a shrine of Virtue in Rome; elater Marcellus23 built what is called the Temple of Virtue and Honour;24 and Aemilius Scaurus,25 who lived in the time of the Cimbrian Wars, built the shrine of Mens so﷓called, which might be considered a Temple of Reason. For at this time rhetoric, sophistry, and argumentation had already found their way into the City; and people were beginning to magnify such pursuits. But even to this day they have no shrine of Wisdom or Prudence or Magnanimity or Constancy or Moderation. But of Fortune there are splendid and ancient shrines, all but coeval with the first foundations of the City.” – Plutarch, On the Fortune of the Romans

In an essay exploring the concept of Fortuna in the Latin world, Nicole Hequet-Noti demonstrates the parallel between the growth of the cult of the goddess and the growth of the military aspect of Rome. In other words, as Rome became a great generator of battles, it also became a great worshipper of that mysterious quality associated with being lucky. As Hecquet-Noti puts it, paraphrasing Cicero’s praise of Sylla: ‘That gift, originally exterior to man, is incorporated in order to become an immanent force in this man, a good properly belonging to him, conferring a particular force superior to that of others…” 18

This double development should be remembered when considering the place of Fortune in Plutarch’s Moralia and biographical writings – an unconsidered source for what became articulated, in the Enlightenment, as the programmatic concept of unintended consequences, except that somewhere in this line of transmission – which might be thought of as the modern moment, co-ordinate with the de-legitimation of glory as the reason of the State - the market is substituted for the battle.

Plutarch’s moralia and his history seem have been divided among different sorts of scholars, who commonly don’t take the time to connect the two text types systematically. What Plutarch meant by his parallel lives, though, was more than just the telling of a history through the lives of great men. Rather, biography here serves as a sort of laboratory in which, through different situations, we see the sentiments or virtues – which are, abstractly, atomic and unified – express themselves differently. This is the doxic force of tyche, of chance.

Now of course in the synthesis of luck and reason that ‘builds’ the market system (as well as the war system), virtue – Plutarchian practical reason – is not wholly powerless before luck. But luck has on its side sheer incident; and sheer incident is hard to treat neutrally. Sheer incident is the screen upon which we project the uncanny, in the Freudian sense. Plutarch tells a story to illustrate how the force of fortune can impose upon virtue – a lesson that is surely underneath the discovery of ‘unintended consequences’ in the Enlightenment:

” Caesar's son, who was the first to be styled Augustus, and who ruled for fifty-four years, ewhen he was sending forth his grandson to war, did he not pray to the goddess to bestow upon the young man the courage of Scipio, the popularity of Pompey, and his own Fortune,38 thus recording Fortune as the creator of himself, quite as though he were inscribing the artist's name on a great monument?a For it was Fortune that imposed him upon Cicero, Lepidus, Pansa, Hirtius, and Mark Antony, and by their displays of valour, their deeds, victories, fleets, wars, armies, raised him on high to be the first of Roman citizens; and she cast down these men, through whom he had mounted, and left him to rule alone. p343It was, in fact, for him that Cicero governed the State, that Lepidus commanded armies, that Pansa conquered, that Hirtius fell, that Antony played the wanton. fFor I reckon even Cleopatra as a part of Caesar's Fortune, on whom, as on a reef, even so great a commander as Antony was wrecked and crushed that Caesar might rule alone. The tale39 is told of Caesar and Antony that, when there was much familiarity and intimacy between them, they often devoted their leisure to a game of ball or dice or even to fights of pet birds, such as quails or cocks; and Antony always retired from the field defeated. It is further related40 that one of his friends, who prided himself on his knowledge of divination, was often wont to speak freely to him and admonish him, 320"Sir, what business have you with this youth? Avoid him! Your repute is greater, you are older, you govern more men, you have fought in wars, you excel in experience; but your Guardian Spirit fears this man's Spirit. Your Fortune is mighty by herself, but abases herself before his. Unless you keep far away from him, your Fortune will depart and go over to him!”
The uncanny has a collective effect that we should not underestimate. Marx’s idea that the political economists had endowed things with a power that they did not have – that, in other words, by avoiding examining human power, political economists were the blind promoters of ideology – plucks out this uncanny moment that binds Roman Fortune and the Invisible Hand of the Scots. Plutarch’s trope concerning Augustus is at least distantly echoed in Smith’s famous passage about the Invisible Hand:
“As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.”
In the Plutarch passage, the work of virtue in those who went before Augustus resulted – in spite of themselves – in adding to Augustus’ glory. The movement, here, is from the virtuous to the fortunate. In Smith, it is an opposite movement – the fortunate make their fortune, in spite of their concentration on selfish gainseeking ends, only by making the larger fortune of others, i.e. the nation itself.

A little history of the Income Tax

Naturally, LI finds the class warfare cry that has gone up with Obama’s proposal to tax the wealthy at a less onerous rate than they were taxed in the 90s rather comic, as class warfare is precisely what is at the heart of progressive taxation. Progressive taxation can best be seen as one of those complex treaties, like that which officially divided up Yugoslavia, that takes a situation of ongoing hostility and freezes it in place. It allows the wealthy to continue to exploit and flourish, but at a cost.

However, there is one aspect of the right’s class warfare meme that seems to have taken root with a considerable number of middle class citizens, which is that there is something unfair about the wealthy paying 50 percent of the total of the income tax collected by the government. The usual response to this by liberals is to point out that federal taxes also consist of taxes for social security and medicare, so that the figure for income tax alone is distorting. This is true.
However, it also concedes the point, and this is bogus. A little historical research will tell us why.
In W. Elliot Brownlee’s dry as a cracker history of the Income Tax (Federal Taxation in America: a history) there is an account of the roots of the Income Tax and the intentions of its designers that makes it clear that the designers meant the income tax to be paid completely, lock stock and barrel, by the rich.
Back in 1916, as Wilson plotted to get America into WWI, the financing of that war was high on the agenda. Southern Democrats, who back then combined racism and populism, saw this as a good opportunity to create a truly progressive tax system.

In Brownlee’s words:

“The Democratic tax program, which was implemented in the
wartime Revenue Acts, transformed the experimental, rather tentative
income tax into the foremost instrument of federal taxation.
The Revenue Act of 1916 imposed the first significant tax on personal
incomes, doubled (to 2 percent) the tax on corporate incomes,
and introduced an excess profits tax of 12.5 percent on munitions
makers. It rejected a broadly based personal income tax—
one falling most heavily on wages and salaries—and focused on
the taxation of the wealthiest families. Among the provisions of the
1916 legislation was the elimination of the personal exemption for
dividends. Thus, the act deliberately introduced the double taxation
of corporate earnings distributed as dividends. In effect, the
1916 legislation embraced the concept of using the corporate and
personal income taxes as two different means of taxing the rich.
The architects of the Revenue Act of 1916 intended to implement
on one hand, through the personal income tax, an “ability-to-pay”
philosophy and on the other hand, through corporate taxation, a
“benefit” theory of taxation.”

What was the result of this?

“In 1918, only about 15 percent of American families had to
pay personal income taxes, and the tax payments of the wealthiest
1 percent of American families accounted for about 80 percent
of the revenues from the personal income tax. Even without taking
into account the incidence of the corporate income tax on the rich,
this wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paid marginal tax rates ranging
from 15 to 77 percent and effective rates averaging 15 percent,
having increased from 3 percent in 1916.”

Say it loud and say it proud: Only the rich should pay income tax! That was the intent, that was the early history, and that was how even the Republican administrations of the 1920s saw things. But the Republican administrations were, after all, business friendly, and one of the things they did was to erase as much as they could indirect taxes – tariffs and corporate taxes – and thereby accidentally increased the importance of the income tax as a funding vehicle for government:

“Mellon’s tax program consolidated the flow of income-tax revenues
into the Treasury. The portion of general revenues provided
to the federal government by indirect taxes (largely the tariff) fell
from almost 75 percent in 1902 to about 25 percent in the 1920s;
meanwhile, income-tax revenues increased, accounting for nearly
50 percent of the federal government’s general revenues. As had
been the case in World War I, income-tax revenues proved to be
more abundant than the Treasury experts had forecast, and the
Republican administrations enjoyed substantial, growing budget
surpluses until the onset of the Great Depression.”

Those income tax revenues, mind, came from the wealthiest income group. In a country where the median income was some 2 thousand dollars per year, the first 3,000 dollars of income was not taxed. As Mellon, the conservative Treasury Secretary put it:

“Mellon went so faras to advocate providing a greater reduction in taxes on “earned”
than on “unearned” income, and the Revenue Act of 1924 included
such a provision. “The fairness of taxing more lightly incomes from
wages, salaries, or from investments is beyond question,” Mellon
asserted. “In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in
duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it;
in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be
disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs.”

While this was a plea for greater death taxes, it was also a concession to the Edgeworthian logic of the tax, in which the determining factor is the marginal utility of income. As the marginal utility of a dollar to a man making 50,000 dollars is much greater than it is for a man making 1 million dollars, the logical thing is to tax the man making 1 million dollars. It does less harm.

So far, so good. But the worm in this apple lies in the notion of ‘investments”. Income, after all, must provide for current expenses and savings in a household. Up until the seventies, the savings of a middle class household were presumed to be in some private pension in combination with social security. Then, of course, the neo-liberal ideology began putting its sharp little teeth in the hide of the developed economies. Why not use tax deductions to get the mass of that savings flowing into the markets? Oh, what a win win proposition. In fact, the winners were naturally in the financial sector – they were the very malefactors of great wealth Roosevelt talked about 70 years before. And so the assets of middle income households were gradually tied to the private financial services sector - stocks and bonds – as their taxes went up to provide for government services and their incomes stagnated. The latter fact was not separate from their investments in the market – in effect, middle class households began betting on their own lack of income growth. This was all very well as long as there were bubbles to make those stock investments grow. Bubbles aren’t bad or good things – they are just the way that technology, population growth and capital converge. However, they let you down in a pinch. Thus, the empire of pensions built up by white collar workers since the Depression, and union workers too, was dissipated in the fine frenzy of the financial markets, and after the first wave, the 401(k) ripoff replaced the traditional pension.

It is this which has introduced an interesting variant into our class war. Their assets of households have made them the allies of the wealthy (this was the intended political dimension of neo-liberal policies) even though the wealthy are really not their allies at all, as any business cycle will show you.

If there were a progressive community in America, this story would be on their radar and they would be fighting against it. One way is to divorce Main Street and Wall Street. This is why LI is a big fan of the government providing a means of investing money with a guaranteed safe rate of return outside of the stock market. Theresa Ghilarducci made a suggestion in 2008 that we stop giving a tax credit to 401(k)s and introduce Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, in which the average person can simply open a government account and park money in it, earning non-taxed interest, with the aim of creating a retirement fund worth 70 percent of a person’s pre-retirement income.

This would be the single biggest blow against the neo-lib agenda since the seventies. A truly liberal president would have Ghilarducci as his advisor. One day we will have such a president, although I imagine Ghilarducci will be retired at that point. At present, we have a president named Obama who is a bit to the right of Andrew Mellon on economic issues. A pity, that.

The geneology of unintended consequences

In the note he devoted to the Regency in his Precis of the Reign of Louis XV, Voltaire marveled at the consequences of the rise and fall of Law’s system in France: “Finally, that famous system of Law or Lass, which seemed it must ruin the regency and the state, in fact sustained one and the other by some consequences that nobody could have foreseen.”

The idea of unforeseen consequences will have a long history in economic thought. Voltaire introduces it hear in a marveling tone – and yet, what he shows is not a marvel, but the development of a trend that developed because of the ‘side effects’ of Law’s system. This is one of Voltaire’s signal contributions to that product of the Enlightenment, the conjectural history, of which the most famous example is Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Even as Montesquieu adheres to the classic rise and fall model of the economy, one in which Nemesis is still visible, the watermark beneath the elegant system, Voltaire dispenses with Nemesis and introduces the complexities of a feedback system that defies, to an extent, any easy moral analysis.

“The cupidity that it awakened in all conditions, from the lowest people up to the magistrates, to the bishops and the princes, diverted the attention of all minds from the public good and all political and ambitious views in filling them with the fear of losing and the avidity of gain. It was a new and prodigious game, when all citizens bet one against the other. Avid gamblers do not quit their cards in order to trouble the government. It happened, by a prestige of which the mechanism was not visible except to the strongest and finest eyes, that a completely chimeric system gave birth to real commerce, and the rebirth of the India Company, established in the past by the famous Colbert and ruined in the wars. At last, if many private fortunes were destroyed, the nation soon became more commercial and rich. This system lit up intellects in the same way the civil wars sharpened courage.”

Voltaire’s is a brief account of the rise and fall of the System, putting into a few paragraphs a broad description of the ‘complexity and rapidity of the machine”. Voltaire does not moralize upon the upsurge of greed, for he saw pretty clearly that greed was not the vice that France was suffering from, but famine and disease. The sudden fortunes acquired by upstarts was, in comparison, a comedy, and one with the strange effect of securing the state. Surely in being able to see these things calmly, Voltaire was influenced by Mandeville, as well as an proto-economist named Melon. And yet Voltaire was enough of a moraliste to understand the symbolism of what he testifies that he saw: Law, an ‘unknown’ and an adventurer, ‘arrive at the halls of the Palais Royale followed by Dukes and Pairs, Marshals of France and Bishops.” The world was only briefly turned upside down, but in that moment a glimpse was given of another possible world.

That possible world is masked by the image of the Age of Reason, which, although an excellent pamphleteering title was not, pace Tom Paine, a very informative description of what the Enlightenment wrought. From Voltaire to Adam Smith, the unintended consequences of action – particularly political action – was the theme constantly sounded against the schemes of sovereign reason, until finally, in the Critique of Pure Reason, reason itself becomes a sort of impotent god, like one of those deified people selected in certain tribes described in the Golden Bough, whose divine life was spent incommunicado, walled up, and generally tabooed. Although it is also true that reason plays a more multitudinous role in the writings of all these writers – if the unintended consequences of political reason, or of the passion for gain, operates as a positive force in the cultivation of progressive society, its negative dimension can be countered by the citizen’s virtue, or practical reason. Paine could just as easily have spoken of the Age of Virtue, for it was virtue that was evoked in the Assembly as the basis of the revolution.

Behind Voltaire and Mandeville’s tonally different but thematically similar analysis of the unexpected social virtues of private vices there lies, in fact, a Plutarchian theme: that of the dispute between virtue and fortune. The contest is staged in two of Plutarch’s speeches – on the fortune of the Romans and on the Fortune of Alexander, as well as in his biographies.

In the speech on the Romans, the contest between Fortune – which is amoral – and virtue – which is moral – is identified with another contest, between fortune and forethought.

“Wherefore our present discourse
does, in a measure, bestow a fair and enviable dignity
upon Rome, if we raise the question over her, even
as we do over earth and sea, heaven and stars, whether
she has come to her present state by Fortune or by
Forethought."
Fortune, it should be said, is not merely chance. In another essay on Fate, Plutarch distinguishes between the contingencies that can befall anything, living or non-living, and the fortune that impinges upon the course of human life:
‘that which is fortuitous allows also chance, and belongs to things practical; but what is by chance cannot be also by fortune, for it belongs to things without action: Fortune, moreover, pertains to rational beings, but chance to rational and irrational beings alike, and even to inanimate things.” Although Plutarch attributes this doctrine to Aristotle, he fundamentally agrees with it, and uses it to give an illustration of unintended effects, or the effects of fortune: ‘Now the cause by accident, when it is found in a thing which not only is done for some end but has in it free will and election, is then called Fortune; as is the finding a treasure while one is digging a hole to plant a tree…” (Volume 3, Essays and Miscellenies)

The example is, as any good Derridean would expect, mysteriously influential on the concept exemplified. Fortune (for Plutarch, tyche) and treasure are bound together through a deal of etymological weather, which is why the beginning of political economic discourse begins by replaying the Plutarchian dramatis personae…

DSK and his fantasies

Freud wrote that the system of the unconscious doesn’t contain a ‘no’. It uses, instead, contradiction to mark a negation – which is why, in dreams, seemingly inconsistent narratives will merrily unfold themselves, making it hard for the dreamer to tell the dream in waking language.

I thought about this watching DSK trying to explain the events of the morning of May 14, 2011 on TF1, where he was interviewed last night by his wife’s friend, newscaster Claire Chazel. The entire interview revolved around a negation: when asked to give his side of what transpired in the thirty some minutes he spent with Nafissa Diallo, DSK came up with no account whatsoever. Instead, he declared that what happened was a ‘moral error’ and that – bizarrely – he was not ‘proud’ of it.

That he was not ‘proud’ of what happened – a phrase he used at least twice – seems to be Strauss Kahn’s attempt to say that he was ashamed of it. But not being proud and being ashamed are, of course, two different things. The idea that something happened for which he had to disclaim ‘pride’ tells us much more about Strauss Kahn’s view of himself as a sexual ‘seducer’ than, perhaps, he might suppose.

Having chosen the famous politician’s strategy of the non-apology apology, Strauss-Kahn went on to heighten the contradictions by claiming that he used no violence and he used no money. In essence, then, what Strauss Kahn is not ‘proud’ of is the story that seems like a very common erotic fantasy. A maid comes to the hotel room, she glimpses Strauss Kahn in his mighty nudity, she swoons with sexual desire, and she offers to suck him off, which he graciously allows until he comes in her mouth, when she spits his semen out.


How plausible is this story? It is about as plausible as a dream. Strauss Kahn himself recognizes this – after telling us that no payment was made, he also tells us that Diallo made the accusations and created the entire storm on account of the fact that she wanted money. Now, of course, in this part of the narrative, we are to believe that as the memory of Strauss Kahn’s irresistible member faded, she decided to charge him with rape to make some money.

What is plausible and what is implausible was one of the great problems around which Aristotle’s Rhetoric turns. The plausible is from the beginning a class instrument – in Aristotle’s terms, it is what seems well to an educated male citizen. That is, to one of the ruling class in the city. And these stories of willing maids and hung males certainly circulate among this class. But outside of that context, the whole story, it seems to me, could be made so wildly implausible by a halfway decent prosecutor that DSK would choke on it in court. I was talking to a friend this morning who thought, after the first five minutes, that DSK did rape Diallo – something he hadn’t thought before – simply because he was the sort of man who got away with jumping women. Perhaps this is true. TF1, however, has done little to cast any light on the subject, and – with a format of questions that never followed up on DSK’s evasions – seems to conspire with his ‘rehabilitation’.
I think that project is fucked from the beginning. I hope so.