Re: Rhizomatic

Dear Comrades,
For what its worth, I think you can have a rhizomic/war machinic/nomadic
political project. Can you avoid such desubjectivisations from being
political? The real question is whether an ETHICALLY SENSITIVE/"GOOD"
POLITICAL PRACTICE/PROJECT can be founded on rhizomishness. In other
words, can there be a Rhizome Ethics? I have to say, I am very doubltful
on this: a nonrepeatable, nonsystematisable ethics looks like no ethics to
me. I think multiculturalism is a good e.g. here: the State/strata makes
up a pracituce of heterogeneous sensitivity where rhizoming - within
bounds - is commendable. Strata+Rhizome deployed in various shifting
configs and becoming prehensiles = an ethics for heterogeneity, but
doesn't guarantee one.

- Chris 

On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Vadim Linetski wrote:

> Aden Evens wrote:
> > 
> > Vadim suggested,
> > 
> > >if we take Aden's cue and adopt his view on rhizome [...], then there is
> > >not >much to say: rhizomatic political strategy
> > >would be nothing else then pragmatist politics, the politics of
> > >compromise and opportunism governed by the demands of context/moment
> > 
> > As Liano pointed out, to limit oneself to any particular program,
> > pragmatist or otherwise, is to create an impoverished rhizome indeed. Or
> > maybe it is enough to note that pragmatism, like the rhizome, doesn't rule
> > anything out. It doesn't rule out considerations of the *future*
> > consequences of one's actions, nor even the tactical establishment of
> > goals, which are more than just "for the moment." (Though goals are always
> > subject to modification.) You are right that there is no rule built into
> > D&G that would interdict fascist alliances. Somewhere near the end of
> > Chapter One of Anti-Oedipus, D&G mention that not only do unconscious
> > fascisms masquerade as overt revolutionary impulses, but mutatis mutandum
> > [?], unconscious revolution may flow underneath fascist organizations.
> > 
> > One never knows what one's actions will lead to, revolution, stasis, an
> > iron fist. Is this ignorance an excuse/invitation to do whatcha like? The
> > only judgement of your actions are their consequences. But the consequences
> > do not judge the action in summary, as though they added up to a value,
> > which was then ascribed to the action.<
> 
> 28 MAY 97
> crudely and bluntly: does it not boil down to: FASCISM WAS NOT GIVEN A
> FAIR CHANCE? it seems you 'd not subscribe to this, but to deny you have
> to contradict your view (last sentences):
> < The consequences are the judgement.
> > *As though every event was sentenced to its consequences, in an immanent
> > and perfect justice.*<
> i.e. an absolute judgement, after all, and consequently, the judgement
> which places smth beyond the possibilities of contextualization?
> vadim
> 
> 
>