Thursday, July 14, 2005
(11:18 AM) | Anonymous:
A response to a critic.
On Monday Adam sent me a link where someone took issue with my first post on the London bombings. I'd link to his site, but I don't think he needs the traffic. Instead, in an homage to Derrida's Limited Inc., I will quote the whole thing.Moral Equivalence WatchWhere to begin? When there is such a gap in communication - such a gap in understanding - where does one begin to clarify one's position? Shall I simply quote the whole thing and end it with [Sic!!!!!]?
Grant Jones
I found this utter disgrace at Adam Kotsko blog:
"It appears almost certain that al-Qaeda is behind the attacks in London today. Using transportation systems to attacks financial interests seems to be their main modus operandi. Is it safe to say that their goal is, indeed, to attack our values? I don't mean by this our 'love of freedom' or any other non-descript value, but our true value which is tied up in our money and capital. I don't understand the terrorists as being simply a part of Islam, some fringe fundamentalists, their relationship to Islam is much the same as our relationship with Capitalism; that is these structures simply serve to intensify our desire. It is becoming readily apparent that neither the Western Capitalists nor the al-Qeada Muslims are waging a war of subjects under some transcendent purpose, properly so-called at least, but of those who desire."
This fool may be on to something. "Capitalism" i.e. free market Smithian economics is an integral part of Western Culture, including a "love of freedom," which no doubt the above writer doesn't suffer from. The "desire" in the case of capitalism is to increase one's material well-being, which includes education, health, longevity, indoor plumbing and electricity, and access to the world of culture in books and on CDs.
Notice how vulgar Marxists, like this Anthony Paul Smith person, considers these natural desires as the product of some artificial "structures." Smith also implies that terrorism is an integral part of Islam's "structure." That the capitalist West chooses life affirming values and the "al-Qeada Muslims" (and their supporters in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, The Saudi Entity, etc.) choose death, is simply a matter of opinion to the Post-Modern Left.
Well, since this is a blog and blogs operate by the general rules of a school yard argument (eg. make the other person look worse than you do), we should start by pointing out that this is not "Adam Kotsko blog", but the Weblog at adamkotsko.com. How did he miss that? Unless he was so angered by the ‘idiocy’ of comparing the West to Islam that he rushed back to his blog without checking out completely who he was angered with. Who knows, I can't ask him because his blog doesn't allow comments and so there will always be some undecidability, no?
I don't expect Grant Jones to be conversant with the thinkers I try to think through when addressing these kinds of issues, but it is clear he misses most of what I was trying to convey. So, while I do indeed think that Capitalism is an integral part of our culture not just here in the West but as a global entity, I don't award it the same moral standing that he does. I also don't award it the standing of 'evil' either, though I do think it has come to the point of being bad for our survival on this planet. Further, it is true that I don't 'suffer' from the same 'love of freedom' that Grant Jones does. If he is truly a free-market Capitalist, an impossibility in this day and age really, then he loves an irresponsible freedom. A freedom from and not a freedom to. He wants a freedom from terrorism, while I hope for a freedom to peace.
But then he gets rather confused. He appears to think that I am a moralist and therefore conceive of Capitalism as evil and thus any desire it intensifies as evil. Pas de tout! It is a matter of directing our desire, of finding a way to have ethical desire for the future so that we can have all that well-being that free-market Capitalism promises to give in the future, but to create that world now. Capitalism, as well as Islam, intensify desire because they are both religious systems that make promises on the future, that ask for our piety on credit. This blocks desire because we are told that we will receive our reward but only by the hard 'work' of destruction and war. Grant Jones says the same thing when he writes under a picture of George killing the dragon, "The next step is to instill in the Jihadis a fear of the West greater than their hatred." That is, we will only have the object of our desires when we have mastery not merely over people but over supra-human emotion itself.
He then makes the claim that I am a 'vulgar Marxist' because I claim (where this claim is I do not know) that these 'natural desires' arise from 'artificial structures'. Did I mention that Capitalism is a religious system? I'm not sure what a natural desire is, or if one could claim any desire as natural for the entire human race, and I don't think it would be helpful to try and think desire-in-itself. The only way to understand desire is the way it moves through structures that are, yes, created by humanity but 'artificial'? - certainly I've demonstrated in the past that the dichotomy of natural and artificial isn't helpful.
Now the boy just gets silly when he makes this claim, "Smith also implies that terrorism is an integral part of Islam's 'structure.'" No, I did not. I said that that I did not understand the terrorists to be simply some part of Islam. I can see how one could misunderstand what I meant, but to be clear I understand terror to be a mode that works through structures against themselves. I understand the branch of Islam that envisions itself to be fighting against foreign capital to, itself, be an integral part of Capitalism. The terror is an integral part of that system, not Islam properly so-called.
His final claim is the best: "That the capitalist West chooses life affirming values and the "al-Qeada Muslims" (and their supporters in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, The Saudi Entity, etc.) choose death, is simply a matter of opinion to the Post-Modern Left [I don't want to judge but I tend to think that people who use the word 'Post-Modern' as a bad word aren't the brightest. -APS]." Of course, we with the biggest missiles and the worst relationship to our environment are life-affirming and they, with their Allah and promise of virgins, choose death! We are good they are evil! We are sheep and they are goats! As for me I think they both choose death just as Grant Jones chooses death and what I want to see is a redirection of our desire and our piety toward life.
