RE: AUT: RE: Fwd: [FSE-ESF] The Truth about Sunday

[".: s0metim3s :." <s0metim3s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lowe:

: whether socdem or liberal
: politics are deterritorializing, I'd
: say that they'd have to be,
: insofar as capitalism is
: deterritorializing in and of itself.

Pardon my vernacular, but this is rubbish.
Capital abstracts.  But *capitalism* is both
territorialising and deterritorialising.  The only
way you can claim that it does the latter is by
pretending that those instances where it does not
are not an essential part of capitalism.
Uprooting and enclosure have a determinate
relationship to eachother.


: > In capitalism, socdem and liberal
: politics are the
: > *distribution* of liberalisation and
: > democratisation (& criminalisation
: and tyranny) as
: > quantifiable degrees of such and,
: more often than
: > not, the formalisation of this distribution in
: > spatial or physical terms (ie.,
: > territorialisation).
:
: OK. So if "social democratic" and
: "liberal" politics as politicians
: use these words are particular
: socio-historical forms of politics and
: logics, then they are not and cannot be
: considered synonymous with
: liberalization or democratization.


What? It has nothing to do with what people say;
it's about what happens.  These politics
distribute progress, and they do not do so
universally.  They also distribute misery and
impoverishment at the same time.

The only way to not get this is by pretending that
nine-tenths of the world does not exist.  Which
I've no doubt it's possible to do if one belongs
to that remaining one-tenth and imagines this to
be the world in its entirety.

Angela
_______________

<end message>







     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---