Re: Rhizomatic

On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Vadim Linetski wrote:

> car los pessoa wrote:
> > 
> > > I wonder if anybody could say something about rhizome as a political
> > > strategy.
> 27 MAY 97
> if we take Aden's cue and adopt his view on rhizome (see his last post:
> rhizome as a connectivity without pre-given rules/structure, 
> connections which cannot be foreseen, in short, a "context" and not a
> Vor-Text), then there is not much to say: rhizomatic political strategy
> would be nothing else the pragmatist politics, the politics of
> compromise and opportunism governed by the demands of context/moment:
> what is best for the moment, that should be adopted.

	You are introducing an element that is not of the concept of 
rhyzomatic you describe Aden as giving.  In particular, you introduce the 
idea that "the moment" should be priviledged always--but this is a rule 
that is pre-given and according to your interpretation of Aden, this is 
not part of what he is advocating.  This is the same inconsistency you 
have recently described the Isrealian "contextualists" as participating in.

	Also, you are imposing a particular view of time--"the 
moment"--which seems very hierarchical, very one after another the latest 
one is best.  Certainly this very concept of time which you impose on 
Aden is not consistent with your interpretation of him.  It is a 
pre-given rule of progression, a pre-given rule of how to move, how to 
make the context, but the context it makes is a very different than the 
context you descibe Aden as advocating.  If this concept were indeed 
present in your interpretation of Aden, then you would be justified in 
pointing out that his concept has concequences he may not forsee, but you 
have not demonstrated that this concept of time is in any way related to 
your interpretation of Aden's post.

	I would suggest that given Aden's description of 
rhizomes, we need to look again at the questions What is politics? and 
What is strategy?  These terms have a particular meaning derived from the 
roles they play in the present hierarchy.  It should not be assumed that 
they will even exist in the absence of that hierarchy, and even if they 
do exist, it should not be assumed that they are the same in that context 
as they are in the present context.  Poliitical pragmatism is a very 
loaded term in the present context.  What may be political and pragmatic 
here, may not be political and pragmatic in Aden's rhizomes.



> under the
> circumstances there would be nothing to hinder a tactic aliance between
> this or another "zappatist" party and this or another neof-fascist
> movement.

	Nothing except the choices we make.  Why are you so afraid of 
allowing people to decide things for themselves?  You seems to distrust 
everyone, why?



> why not? as Liano has taught us, the context makes "absolutes"
> not absolute. the motto of  rhizomatic strategy would be "it depends..."
> long live fascism with a human face - and D/G its prophets!
> vadim
> 


	Yes, it depends on the choices we make.  If we allow it to depend 
on anything else, if we allow it to depend on some pre-defined rule 
(absolute or not), then 
we do not rule ourselves.  We are ruled by an absolute monarch in guilded 
halls of reason and light.    
	Is this what you want Vadim?

		

In Freindship,

	Liano