 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)dariusgriffin ...and 89 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613460 Today 3 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
101 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
kittens, abstract talk about politics. there's not such a great difference. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think there is much debate over whether the act of blowing a hole in a wall built by an aggressive western backed regional superpower in order to bypass food sanctions is progressive, it quite clearly is, you'd have to make a case that insurrection isn't radical. Striving for a "just and free society" is a v. rigid definition of progressive left actions and sounds a liitle too much like descriptions of western democracy to be really taken seriously. deleuze is totally against generalisations, yes generalisations are unfair and the language we use is unfair. deleuze and guattari suggest that a new mode of thought (and obviously a new language) is necessary in accompanying a radical movement. This extends beyond the obvious battlefield into everyday movement, the mundane everyday is an expression of the connections that make up a subject. You can't play strictly within the bounds of the system which you are fighting and I think this thought quite neatly relates to the idea that blowing a hole in a wall is progressive especially when it has such an obvious practical benefit allowing people to feed themselves DIY style. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Somehow i have the impression that you don't understand, that blowing holes in walls wouldn't be neccesary if the hamas would just stop to destroy Israel. Not everything would be perfect, it only could be a beginning of a better relationship. Also, there are a lot more of countries in the middle east, that are or were 'western backed'. You never mention that, why is that? And what does it mean exactly? Who or what group is backing up Israel and why? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
At the subject of Israel my only hope is that an acceptance of the Palestinian state by the UN in september will create a more level playingfield in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i put the words "free and just" society in quotes, because it's clear that judith butler wouldn't use such an expression. however, it seems rather clear that butler aims for a social situation which she considers somehow "good". butler is driven by ethical concerns. in the introduction to a later edition of gender trouble - i think i remember it correctly, but i don't have my copy of gender trouble ready at hand to look it up - she says that a central part of the motivation for her writing this book is the violence directed against people who don't fit into gender norms. so she is driven to a large extent by the desire to create a social situation, which conforms to her ethical ideals. and she herself labels her ideals as somehow left. but the desire that hamas and hezbollah are driven by is very different from that of butler; the desire of hamas is not a political or social situation which could be called left. they want to establish an islamic theocracy. being an underdog and fighting against a superpower doesn't make you left. an islamic theocracy has nothing to do with left ideals. i think that if you want to judge a person, you need to judge their aims/desires/will. and the will/aim/desire of hamas is not left, therefore i hold that it's deeply false to say hamas or hezbollah are part of the left. [that's my central point.] i'm echoing here kant's great remark: "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will." (Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals, first section) … i'm not a kantian, but i think he got it right that you need to look at a person's intention to judge their ethical status. and the intention of hamas is vile and not ethical or left at all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
