Thought of the day 2

***%^n, thanks for your reply. I'm going to need some time to think about this to give you an appropriate response. A couple things come to mind however, and I'm glad you used the term co-opted because for me it is a central device in the uses of rhetoric. But we might be employing a different usage of said term. When i was first introduced to it at a series of anarchist seminars in D.C. the speakers were discussing how capitalists were using common motifs from communist and anarchist aesthetics like the red star, sickle and hammer on their pre-ripped jeans, and grunge aesthetic etc. Dead kennedy songs are used in car commercials, and republicans are crying out power to the people. The speakers were concerned about, how they can 'steal' their symbols back. But, i think these efforts are useless. I am also reminded here how lesbian media are using the image of rosy the riveter, and the word bitch to describe their vision of an empowered woman. Symbols are about identity and experience they are supposed to embody and convey. But this means, if we can infuse central terms of political discussion with with new meanings, our arguments carry with them a strange potency that is directed at the very heart of the 'frame of reference'. 


Take the neo-cons for example. Their very persuasive arguments are centered around general but 'American' terms like freedom and democracy. Promoting freedom (through military aggression). Without the art of the co-opt, how are we supposed to speak to people on their level? An activist will ignore this at his/her own peril. The communists' argument is alien to the layman because the term proletarian is about as american as a bowl of borsch. we are a people dissatisfied with messianic idols, be they political or religious. Post-Reagan politics is moving towards a political rationalism, which i think could be provided by a proletarian style nationalism just as easily if not better. 


lets review the platforms. What is fiscal responsibility; does it have anything to do with public schools? What is national security, does it have anything to do with de-armament (sp?) and normalization of relations? What is opportunity, social mobility perhaps....and political integrity, maybe that has something to do with separating the industrial power structure from the funding of political campaigns; lets buy back our politicians (for instance). 


Politics like you say is indeed the interruption of normal power relationships. But for that reason, i think it is like a speaking situation, akin to something like due process, or arbitration, Even so, we are obliged to follow rules. Rules, norms and the common motifs of political discussion. Thus, the subversive element appears to be harmonious with the times, and would have the effect of what Frued calls 'the uncanny' Of course this formula only goes so far, there are real power relationships at work here. We may not be afforded our day in court less we forge that opportunity through our labors. But letting the situation get worse will not help us i think. And how do we create a new politic without metonymizing these old values to reflect the mindset of change?

Our institutions are perfectly rational to those for whom the profit is afforded to. I often come back to schmidt when i consider the efficacy of a 'class consciousness' or critique of power relations. This friend-enemy relationship appears to be productive to a certain extent. Also, any 'inside' forms its borders according to what is 'outside'. That is why universiality is never an attainable goal, unless we exclude the proponents of division; There is no coherence to this community, unless we exclude those who seek to destroy it; there is no great society, unless we usurp the captains of exploitation and so-forth.

Anyhow, your characterization of populace has its historical roots in Plato which im sure your aware; it has been the central schemata of any anti-populist argument that i've ever heard. It boils down to defining populations as irrational and schizophrenic, therefore requiring a vanguard, or rule of oligarchy. From Marx to Goldwater, Keynes to Adam Smith, western political pedagogy is obsessively anti-democratic. But we are afraid of this great beast because we call it a great beast; this is a rhetorical maneuver. We often find that we are in fact merely a great flock, and the term leviathan is rightly afforded to those nobles who comprise 'the institution'.