hello again.
quetzil - what I mean by distinguishing between power in the bad sense
and power in the neither good nor bad sense is not that there is any hard
and fast criteria by which one could decide. Rather, there are different
modes for the exercise of power. And some of these modes work in my
interests and some of them work against my interests. This is all I
meant. My criteria is strictly political and strictly contextual: "In
this instance, is this particular instance of power working for me?"
Thoroughly opportunistic, I think, but after all, the point of political
struggle, as I've said, is not the discovery of truth - the point, after
all, is to win. Opportunism is a drastically underrated political mode.
Also, not all forms of racism are Eurocentric, but all forms of
Eurocentrism are racist. And exclusion per se is not the problem. It's
not *that* people are being excluded - it's *who* is being excluded, and
whether I like those people or not. For example, I would be quite in
sympathy with a political program that sought to exclude businessmen. And
when a political regime, in Nicaragua for example, excludes American
companies and large land-owners, I don't see what the problem is. I'm
actually quite happy with exclusion as a political tactic. But again: who
is being excluded, and in whose interests? Are these my interests? If
not, then the instance of power that secures the exclusion is *bad*. If
so, then the same instance is *good*. My point is that ethical criteria
come after the fact of political identification. The central question is
not "Am I right or wrong about this or that question?" - it is "Which
side am I on?" Only once you've decided that can one begin answering
empirical or ethical questions.
p.s. this is not a revolutionary gesture - this is me talking over
e-mail. There are no guns or bombs involved here in cyberspace -
lamentably perhaps.
bye. malcolm
quetzil - what I mean by distinguishing between power in the bad sense
and power in the neither good nor bad sense is not that there is any hard
and fast criteria by which one could decide. Rather, there are different
modes for the exercise of power. And some of these modes work in my
interests and some of them work against my interests. This is all I
meant. My criteria is strictly political and strictly contextual: "In
this instance, is this particular instance of power working for me?"
Thoroughly opportunistic, I think, but after all, the point of political
struggle, as I've said, is not the discovery of truth - the point, after
all, is to win. Opportunism is a drastically underrated political mode.
Also, not all forms of racism are Eurocentric, but all forms of
Eurocentrism are racist. And exclusion per se is not the problem. It's
not *that* people are being excluded - it's *who* is being excluded, and
whether I like those people or not. For example, I would be quite in
sympathy with a political program that sought to exclude businessmen. And
when a political regime, in Nicaragua for example, excludes American
companies and large land-owners, I don't see what the problem is. I'm
actually quite happy with exclusion as a political tactic. But again: who
is being excluded, and in whose interests? Are these my interests? If
not, then the instance of power that secures the exclusion is *bad*. If
so, then the same instance is *good*. My point is that ethical criteria
come after the fact of political identification. The central question is
not "Am I right or wrong about this or that question?" - it is "Which
side am I on?" Only once you've decided that can one begin answering
empirical or ethical questions.
p.s. this is not a revolutionary gesture - this is me talking over
e-mail. There are no guns or bombs involved here in cyberspace -
lamentably perhaps.
bye. malcolm