From: Liano Sharon <lsharon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 12:38:10 +0800 (CST)
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
Nothing except the choices we make. Why are you so afraid of
allowing people to decide things for themselves? You seems to distrust
> 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!
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?