Stephen D'Arcy wrote:
>
> Nicholas Dronen wrote:
> > I agree that it does not belittle the cause of the Zapatistas
> >if Foucault was introduced by someone other than a homegrown
> >intellectual. However, it does say something about the nature of the
> >uprising if it was instigated by external leadership....
> I don't know what you mean.
I suggests that the Chiapas uprising, and others like, aren't the
spontaneous result of long-standing oppression. It is a result of being
convinced by someone else that they are oppressed.
> > When the Chiapas story first broke, I was rooting for the
> >Zapatistas, but after I learned that Marcos was not native to Chiapas
> >and after I thought a little about the famed socio-economic anaylsis
> >of the French Revolution (which I thought was done by Samuel
> >Huntington, but which Alisdair MacIntyre attributes to someone else)
> >my thoughts on the conflict changed. (In case you aren't familiar
> >with the study of the French Revolution, the upshot is that the
> >revolution was caused not by severe economic hardship but rather by a
> >rising middle class and the concomitant (sp?) rise of expectations
> >among that class.)
> Here I think I understand your point, but don't find it very
> compelling. I gather that you think that the peasants in Mexico are
> being "uppity," since they have been convinced by an "outside
> agitator" that they deserve to live in better conditions than they
> currently do (i.e., they have "rising expectations").
Not quite, although I may think that on occasion. I'm more inclined to
the view, informed by the alien status of Marcos and the study of the
FR, that it is wrong to view the uprising as a spontaneous rupture of
desire pent-up by oppression.
> I take the opposite view: their expectations have not risen nearly far
> enough. They ought to recognize, in Marx's phrase, "the prodigious
> scope of their own aims" ("18th Brumaire"). Given that wealth is
> produced in Mexico, the question is: what should be done with it? If
> the Zappatistas want to say that it should be used to meet human
> needs, then they ought to recognize that this entails the idea that
> capitalism should be dissolved and replaced. As far as I know, they
> have so far failed to recognize this.
Another interesting question is: how capitalistic is Mexico, anyway?
And what proportion of small, medium, and big business make up the
economy?
A guy in the Austin chaper of the Sierra Club who spends a lot of time
in Mexico told me on a recent hike that a new group of rebels has sprung
up. They are quite well-armed, and their stated aim is more ambitious
than that of the Zapatistas--they intend to overthrow the Mexican
gov't. I'm not sure whether they're populist (seeing the gov't as
illegitimate because of its corruption and near-monopoly party rule)
or leftist (seeing the gov't as illegitimate because it has or intends
to sell off nationalized industries). Should be interesting though.
> > I am not so willing any longer to suppose that each and every
> > left-leaning rebellion is justified and legitimate.
> A more interesting question is: given that people will rebel even
> without first getting your permission, how do you propose to respond?
> For example, when there are shots being fired by both the Mexican
> government and the Zappatistas, whose side are you on -- the uppity
> peasants, or the presumably "justified and legitimate" government, or
> neither? If neither, what does that mean in such a context?
I don't think that the Mexican gov't is holy. But since I am aware
that the de facto one-party rule of the PRI is weakening, and since I
see "capitalism" as a managable monster, I don't feel any pressing need
to jump in on either side. Revolution as spectator sport, anyone?
> > A good friend of mine from high school, now an activist in New
> >York, organizes garment factories (or tries to) and speaks
> >occasionally on diverse and radical topics at a Pathfinder Books in
> >Washington (somewhere near 8th and E Streets SE). I could respect
> >what he is doing were it not for the fact that I know him well enough
> >to see that what he is really doing is trying to become The Great
> >Leader of Men. Isn't it somewhere in Beyond Good and Evil that
> >Nietzsche says not to be deceived by the humble appearance of the
> >holyman, as he is secretly prideful in his heart?
> (Speaking of ad hominem arguments.....)
It's not an ad hominem argument. It's an anecdote which illustrates
that the intentions of a suposedly great liberator may not always be the
best. And I am right on the mark in my evaluation of what my friend is
doing, too. I know him very well.
> What if your ershwhile good friend were not only an unsavoury
> character etc., but also had some opinions which were correct, such as
> that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and that bosses exploit workers, and that
> garment workers will benefit from being organized? Isn't that
> possible?
What does 2+2=4 tell me about what to do with my life (not to mention
less certain formulae like what bosses "really do")?
I hope you don't consider gravity an opinion, or else (insert
"I refute it thus!" or apartment window joke here).
> And what if the Zappatistas were right to think that they can only
> gain from fighting? Of course, that would not convince any
> philosopher that their fight was "justified and legitimate." On the
> contrary, it would only show that whether a struggle is justified does
> not matter; what matters is that some people have every reason to
> engage in it. That, presumably, is why people who engage in struggles
> don't first ask philosophers for permission.
I thought you would find what I have written to be a refreshing break
>from the bizarre pretension that philosophy, or "theory," really means
something--can "really make a difference"--in the lives of "the
people." That you refer *sarcastically* to the sad fact that the
Zapatistas failed to ask for my opinion suggests that I think they
should have asked, for some reason. I wouldn't flatter myself.
Besides, they already have Mr. Marcos to tell them what to do, and he is
a better writer.
Nicholas
P.S. Atefeh, the reference for the interview in which Foucault says
that his "work" is fiction in some respect is buried somewhere in _The
Lives of Michel Foucault_ by David Macey. Sorry I wasn't able to find
it.
>
> Nicholas Dronen wrote:
> > I agree that it does not belittle the cause of the Zapatistas
> >if Foucault was introduced by someone other than a homegrown
> >intellectual. However, it does say something about the nature of the
> >uprising if it was instigated by external leadership....
> I don't know what you mean.
I suggests that the Chiapas uprising, and others like, aren't the
spontaneous result of long-standing oppression. It is a result of being
convinced by someone else that they are oppressed.
> > When the Chiapas story first broke, I was rooting for the
> >Zapatistas, but after I learned that Marcos was not native to Chiapas
> >and after I thought a little about the famed socio-economic anaylsis
> >of the French Revolution (which I thought was done by Samuel
> >Huntington, but which Alisdair MacIntyre attributes to someone else)
> >my thoughts on the conflict changed. (In case you aren't familiar
> >with the study of the French Revolution, the upshot is that the
> >revolution was caused not by severe economic hardship but rather by a
> >rising middle class and the concomitant (sp?) rise of expectations
> >among that class.)
> Here I think I understand your point, but don't find it very
> compelling. I gather that you think that the peasants in Mexico are
> being "uppity," since they have been convinced by an "outside
> agitator" that they deserve to live in better conditions than they
> currently do (i.e., they have "rising expectations").
Not quite, although I may think that on occasion. I'm more inclined to
the view, informed by the alien status of Marcos and the study of the
FR, that it is wrong to view the uprising as a spontaneous rupture of
desire pent-up by oppression.
> I take the opposite view: their expectations have not risen nearly far
> enough. They ought to recognize, in Marx's phrase, "the prodigious
> scope of their own aims" ("18th Brumaire"). Given that wealth is
> produced in Mexico, the question is: what should be done with it? If
> the Zappatistas want to say that it should be used to meet human
> needs, then they ought to recognize that this entails the idea that
> capitalism should be dissolved and replaced. As far as I know, they
> have so far failed to recognize this.
Another interesting question is: how capitalistic is Mexico, anyway?
And what proportion of small, medium, and big business make up the
economy?
A guy in the Austin chaper of the Sierra Club who spends a lot of time
in Mexico told me on a recent hike that a new group of rebels has sprung
up. They are quite well-armed, and their stated aim is more ambitious
than that of the Zapatistas--they intend to overthrow the Mexican
gov't. I'm not sure whether they're populist (seeing the gov't as
illegitimate because of its corruption and near-monopoly party rule)
or leftist (seeing the gov't as illegitimate because it has or intends
to sell off nationalized industries). Should be interesting though.
> > I am not so willing any longer to suppose that each and every
> > left-leaning rebellion is justified and legitimate.
> A more interesting question is: given that people will rebel even
> without first getting your permission, how do you propose to respond?
> For example, when there are shots being fired by both the Mexican
> government and the Zappatistas, whose side are you on -- the uppity
> peasants, or the presumably "justified and legitimate" government, or
> neither? If neither, what does that mean in such a context?
I don't think that the Mexican gov't is holy. But since I am aware
that the de facto one-party rule of the PRI is weakening, and since I
see "capitalism" as a managable monster, I don't feel any pressing need
to jump in on either side. Revolution as spectator sport, anyone?
> > A good friend of mine from high school, now an activist in New
> >York, organizes garment factories (or tries to) and speaks
> >occasionally on diverse and radical topics at a Pathfinder Books in
> >Washington (somewhere near 8th and E Streets SE). I could respect
> >what he is doing were it not for the fact that I know him well enough
> >to see that what he is really doing is trying to become The Great
> >Leader of Men. Isn't it somewhere in Beyond Good and Evil that
> >Nietzsche says not to be deceived by the humble appearance of the
> >holyman, as he is secretly prideful in his heart?
> (Speaking of ad hominem arguments.....)
It's not an ad hominem argument. It's an anecdote which illustrates
that the intentions of a suposedly great liberator may not always be the
best. And I am right on the mark in my evaluation of what my friend is
doing, too. I know him very well.
> What if your ershwhile good friend were not only an unsavoury
> character etc., but also had some opinions which were correct, such as
> that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and that bosses exploit workers, and that
> garment workers will benefit from being organized? Isn't that
> possible?
What does 2+2=4 tell me about what to do with my life (not to mention
less certain formulae like what bosses "really do")?
I hope you don't consider gravity an opinion, or else (insert
"I refute it thus!" or apartment window joke here).
> And what if the Zappatistas were right to think that they can only
> gain from fighting? Of course, that would not convince any
> philosopher that their fight was "justified and legitimate." On the
> contrary, it would only show that whether a struggle is justified does
> not matter; what matters is that some people have every reason to
> engage in it. That, presumably, is why people who engage in struggles
> don't first ask philosophers for permission.
I thought you would find what I have written to be a refreshing break
>from the bizarre pretension that philosophy, or "theory," really means
something--can "really make a difference"--in the lives of "the
people." That you refer *sarcastically* to the sad fact that the
Zapatistas failed to ask for my opinion suggests that I think they
should have asked, for some reason. I wouldn't flatter myself.
Besides, they already have Mr. Marcos to tell them what to do, and he is
a better writer.
Nicholas
P.S. Atefeh, the reference for the interview in which Foucault says
that his "work" is fiction in some respect is buried somewhere in _The
Lives of Michel Foucault_ by David Macey. Sorry I wasn't able to find
it.