by Group for Conceptual Politics
Something was abandoned. It’s not overcame – if anything at all is possible and necessary to overcome. It, therefore overcoming, always means return to the known – but then as to the knowledge, and then finally it’s considered real. But our question is addressed to possible. Prescriptive. To prescribe – ascrible and rekindle forward. ‘Forward’ is not the direction of progress. Progress with the direction is linear and problematic. It divides into phases and introduces order. ‘Forward’ as everyone on his/her side? Absolutely, though to be ones-self is not so much of a work.
Abandoned is an insights that people are recuperated, and not the ideas. But that with people has never been easy.
Scientific discourse becomes something else by becoming journalism and teaching program. The curriculum becomes something else by becoming scientific discourse. All that or both by becoming politics again becomes something else, and vice versa. Neither here nor there. But hybridity does not automatically mean something good. Especially if it’s neitherenortherability. And what would be any Good at all, especially if it is One? Disqualification of freedom of creativity is not our problem. We are interested in production, and therefore in material one. Exploitation rests upon it, and everything else is a mere division of the manual and intellectual labor and it amuses staff appliances that are amused exclusively about themselves. This one is not painless, but it is not the first if we stick to the determination in the last instance and overdetermination, by which an expressive totality is broken at the order of totalization which is our first problem. The problem and the enemy, because sooner or later, it is completed in totality and in One as in God as Father, in Father and in Daddy, in Mommy too.
Moms and dads, uncles and aunts. Godfathers, godmothers and mistresses. Misters too. The machine of justice, but also machine of knowledge, university and academy, to put it bluntly, establishes the first meaning of what we talk about, and that not only with its acts, its offices, its books, its symbols, its topography, but also with its personnel (teachers, assistants, bailiffs), its women – let’s add to this men too – who are adjacent to the porno books of the law, its accused and its students compelled to trial and who make up an interdeterminate material.The first meaning is still meaning and is therefore in the order of signifying while the production of which we are thinking still evades. Today, when anyone who holds to emancipation and to politics-from-the-left wants to be the worker (is there politics from the right?), are not quite precise when they argue that by desiring, and thus blocking every excursion to the objective interests of the working class. But the thing with this class is different in that subjective or in interiority. It, therefore subjective, what we call the representation and ideology, and in which a thinking could only happen – by prescription and decision, by courage, or more precise by exposure of exposing to a danger – it, therefore subjective, can not think of its politics under the patronage of class analysts. It’s all over its head and far away from classism as much as the Chinese factories in which blood of workers is still flowing, is away from the dream of support of cognitariat harnessed by the capitalist machine. The fact that China is in the neighborhood does not help. All the same, the real subsumption does not create the working class. Even that is not enough. Especially if it is approached from the point of exchange. We are, as we said, interested in the production and therefore materialone, and then only, and in it, the real subsumption. The place of struggle is not in the physical space, but it’s not in the concept too – and that is the limit for the conceptual politics.
Therefore, we are on the brink of the incident – and that means of exclusion. The emerging party rejects and divides as it seeks to divide labor. It is exclusive and personnel oriented. The people are being elected and the wheat from the chaff is being separated. But you do not need to pray for company and for menbetweening. On the contrary. So the mistakes of Yugoslav Surrealists shouldn’t be repeated. One has to wonder, and we are actually surprised. Awkwardly, but surprised. At least it is certain that the problem is not deduced and that it’s not an answer to the previously posed question which paves the way for it. Structures are only appearing in that way.
Today is the umpteenth time and in terms of art, the stand is on the side of propaganda and socialist realism – on the side of the Party. Autonomy of art is treated in the objectivists way, meaning pandurian-like-way and in the hybrid way as described above – a hybrid because agit-propaganda is no longer science, neither the theory of art, nor art. We are quite convinced that then it does not lead to politics. Politics like art is a thought and it is not a knowledge. Places of politics are places of names that are not already assigned but thought materialistically.
But it will be told to us that politics is not a stake. Socialism is, and it is today invoked, it was therefore by simptomal testimony of its dissidents – liberals and democrats let’s say – abolishing politics in its declarative program of abolishing the state while at the same time build it faster and in more modern way than the Moderna itself, from which it thought it departs. May that be said at the Left today at all? It’s not the right time it would be told to us. Now, when they are all around us … But around us is who? Who is around us? The same who surrounds us we become ourselves and that is justified by tactical reasoning. To publish in the ‘New Serbian Political Thought’ is yet another step in the long march through the institutions, and that is, therefore march(fuck)-off!, it’s been prolonged and when it comes to travel through the radical theories. Prolonged until arrestment and popularization, which is nothing but teaching-preaching. Deacons are opening the doors to their fathers, and these in return open the channels, but not a line of flight, but on the contrary – the channels of social mobility to which sinecures are assigned. Around us and in us is the state, silent and vigorous order which tailors our perceptions, thoughts and emotions. The content of the concept is determined by production relation, and not at all by genus proximum et differentia specifica. Vassalage and poltroonery, cowardice and treason. But what we’re saying? All themselves romantic screams swiped by draft, which does not escape the critical adequate ventilation. Objectivist around us does not miss. Romanticism and voluntarism of frustrated and soon aggressive one is not a good ally. Anger and bitterness take us back in low – low of return. So we, you see, from that are feeling vomiting. Who’s afraid of mooseriesyet! The defense of the lost is the defense of the weakness. Ended is not here to be defended, but that through thinking of thinking which has thinking it, meant being left of the past and begin anew the thinking elsewhere – of that on which the question of decision is lying. Flight for us is not just a search for weapons, but also its invention. Should something be said about understanding too? We interrupt associative sequencing and refuse to understand and interpret. To explain we also do not intend to do.
Totalizing paranoia of academic criticism frustrates critics which invokes and disciplines. The words are being chosen: it’s being named and positions are named. Curses are considered inappropriate. What an insight! But even with the poetry situation didn’t get better: Davičo’s call to switch from poetry to cursing was deprived of its outgrowth on barren soil of universities’ asceticism and sad, deadly serious, asceticism which is by the university’s language and practice tailored according to its own desires. And to humor has been rung out at the periphery. But there so is mocking, that with the sycophancy and fear flattens each problematization generously recommending new and ever newer themes and literature – all the more extensive – though it is clear that this alone will never play (any music).
Teachers are giving birth to teachers, not quite as a horse is giving birth to a horse because the axes are in question. You start to play and here they are. Coaches with the judges. Students with their clergymen who panting and cuts to their necks waiting for the moment when the exhausted collapse. Until then, old-men will have their own readers and ‘writers of the same writer,’ multiplied as long as power and time of schooling spans. To getting old in the school-bench, by playing of ‘teachers and students’, ‘dads and moms’, and then the ‘merchants’ too. Indians do not exist. Starvation is a decisive moment of this technique of reproduction of violence and submission which learns to listen to both sides. Yield to know how to rule. Not cheerful doctrine at all.
Politics? To be visible, accumulate symbolic capital, to sell it in exchange for a salary. Nothing else but the Castle. Entering the Castle and meeting of reasonable expectations. You must navigate and not live. Capitalparlamentary and university landing on the ground of society that no one calls any more civilian, is what has always been: the strengthening of the state. Strengthening in a way of weakening. Deregulation reprieves subsumption of staff (which in any case, neither of itself, is not leading to the proletariat), which is left to think whatever it wants if it obeys the tempo and rhythm of the production of power. That’s why it can not be the material production, and then either the production itself, but what has been already called antiproduction which takes place, which is being realized, with allencompassing commodification. But this dialectics is still untrained and stinks of paradox. To strengthen by weakening! But, paradoxical is very refusal to take an insight in proliferation of the state institutions which clearly show their structure – the structure of production relations which reproduce – and which is extended by the famous real subsumption. But the real one is, do not forget, in material production. And this one, subsumption of cognitariat, just expands what was once called bureaucracy.
The technocratic affair is over. The very bureaucracy was touched by it, until finally it is freed of need for a metaphorical ‘rationalization’. Kafka showed mechanism of bureaucratic ensemble and with technical machines we no longer have to have anything and dimming the horizon of objective interests of the working class. Objectivity of those interests should be shown in all its conceptuality in order to be left in the name of struggle. Nepotism and dysfunctionality are regimes of labor which bring into light sociability of technocratic rationality which has imagined to have a deal with the things themselves. Relationships among things are relations among people. Menbetweenings in the last instance. And it’s not an illusion, it should be an insight. The illusion is a situation in which we experience the relations between people as relations between things and when we scientify our own thinking and in that way reproduce empiricist attitude/cornerstone of every idealism. For us materialism is not empiricism, and then neither science. Materialism is subjectivity, because that that we think stands to indistinction in its irreducibility to the knowledge. Thus it is not Hegel’s known, it is unknown and knowable. The known, as always, is the thing of acquaintances and old, and then well-networked, acquaintances.
Tail to tail, a bevy of prey. Political instead of politics, institutions and „visibility“ instead of struggle. Spectacle. State personnel inhabit a society that no longer needs to be defended. It has showed itself: relations of production which reproduce in the function of exploitation. It is the state, and in this we see the contribution of socialism. That has been put forward to light by capitalism. However, the military-industrial complex is still there; bureaucratized as demonstrated to us by Kafka: inhabited by families and gangs, servants and clients who adhere to the position which is assigned to them in the division of pray, willing to wait for their moment. As that cannot be a moment of revolt, but of governmentality, it is clear from the principles of their scholastics.
Footnotes
- Totalization is reproduction of fundamental contradiction which is prescriptive because the struggleis a fundament of that about which any objectalists scientific cultivation is about, and it is not the same as practice. Isn’t it after all practice that which puts to test any tuning? Something is practical when it plays. Militant, however, not. That’s exactly the difference between prescriptive and descriptive which seeks its practice.
- Deleuze-Guattarian Kafka
- Claude Levi-Strauss.
