Re: Re: Slim Distinction

I guess I'm not certain what all the hubbub is about. Am I too molecular, or
do all these vague molarities of "feminism", "communism", etc. seem too
amorphous for me to identify?

  Whatever "feminism" is or isn't, the emergence of female subjectivities is
of great importance in the modern day world. This is cause for celebration,
the unfolding of suppressed potentials. I don't mean to say that there is some
sort of inherent unity in those experiences, beyond the situation itself of
suppression and overcoming suppression. But sexism has bifurcated human
potential and segregated important qualities of being alive, and the end of
that segregation is of great importance. And then we might find Oedipus hiding
within the whole thing as well. While sexism has focused us on dividing
qualities between men and women, what qualities have gone unnoticed, more
interesting qualities, more interesting distinctions? A Nietszcheian analysis
(no, let me correct myself : many nietzscheian analyses) might be relevant to
gently be aware of how emergence can sometimes get oedipalized into reactivity
instead of activity.

  As far as communism goes, there is much to be articulated. Baudrillard in
his early 70's stages was helpful in deconstructing the notion of "needs" and
"abilities", so that we can rephrase Marx's famous formula of communism into a
new phrase which needs much development :

    "From each according to her desires, to each according to her desires."

    An analysis of that libidinal freeflow and a development of it is of some
importance.

    For me, communism is one pole and economy is the other pole and we swing
along this continuum. Economy is a condition of accounting for everything, of
tit-for-tat, of regulated and digitized exchange. Personally I think it's
connected to ressentiment, although that might be in its reactive form ;
perhaps there is a delirium of counting. Communism is about freeflow, not
bothering to count, ec-static interchanges between people on a variety of
semiotic levels rather than mere regulated exchange of money and products.
It's a generalized level of differential sharing and ludic activity. There's
much to be theorized here. Marx often didn't think on these terms. I think
Guattari is a little more explicit about the multiple semiotics of a
communism.

In all of these discussions, I like to think of Deleuze's comment about not
making a writer sad with one's statements. I like thought that multiplies
powerfulness rather than creating sadness. This involves rethinking terms
we're bandying around as if they're certainties rather than tools in an
ongoing process of thought.

my two cents, 

(un)leash