[D-G] Things said and things unsaid

Dr. Harald Wenk hwenk at web.de
Mon Feb 21 11:05:10 PST 2005


I think that is a very good objection.
The main thing that has changed, thatr it is no longer crucial to be
"anti". The generation of 68 wasinst the establishment and suppression in  
any form.
My generation, which is more that of 78, tried a little to build up
some alternative ways of living, substituting families by communities,
non autorative education and non-hirarchical organisation of work.
This has led to a own left wing scene, with the obstacle that it was apart
 from the majority of normal people. Thes people were also interested
in overcoming the difficulties of family life and hirarchic work.
But as the left liked to critize the things in such a way that only a
change of system, e.g. the destroying of capitalism, is able to bring  
the communication, in a emphazic sense, broke down.
Especially the attitude of making the majority feling guilty as  their  
was said to relay on the explotation of the third and fourth world, has  
deseastrous in this respect.
If you look, the main profit in the western countries
is earned with indusrtrial and postindustrial (media, software) goods.
So  think this economically utterly nonsense, the wealth is a effect of  
productitvity based on higher technology.
If anyone remembers, the original critic of Marx goes, that capitalism
is a bondage for productivity. This is indeed the case, but the critic was
often, that the development of technology goes too fast.
I dont if you imagine what kind of freedom, first of work,
automatization brings.
I my eyes, and also in the eyes of the economy, a lot of paid work today  
is more or less
superflous. Now as people need income, we got a problem of
unemployment, which is a expression of wealth.
Now this wealth goes in zthe totally wrong direction,
as it sharpens the concurrence among the people, who want to be employed.
This is also thge case for very educated people.
It is a effect of technological pprogress, that more and more
qulified work becomes superflous.
Another effect of the high productivity is that human work is
exorbitant expensive compared with industrial produced goods.
So there is a strong urge to avoid it as a cost factor.

In short, the economical "empire of freedom" has grown,
but most people do not participate adequately.

In this situation it is in my eyes necessary to develop
a economical thinking, especially concerning the distribution
of money, which on one hand encourages technological
develpopment and on the other hand let a lot of people profit of
the spare time gained by the higher productivity of the machines.

Thats economics.

On the other hand i don't see what cultural interest
are for the majority, to suppress something cultural worhwhile.

The poorness of mass media is mainly due to the exhaustion of the public,
having no real time and habit to think about things and develop goood  

In short, thinking in suppression is not the main thing anymore, perhaps  
it is time again
to think of solutions for the majority, incliding oneselft, of people.

Concerning the undevelopped countrys, it is necessary, as tghe industroal  
take off got a new phase,
to do this with high tech, by mas production not so expensive, which is  
ecological effectiv.

Harald Wenk

Am Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:08:39 -0800 schrieb sid littlefield  
<falsedeity at lycos.com>:

> To clear some confusion and ask another question:
> My original post, that started a bit action, was not a condemnation of  
> all poetry or creative posts to this list, nor was it an attempt to  
> maintain the "original identity" of this list. It was a particular  
> reaction to "bad poetry." The fact that it has gotten such a response  
> from certain members (some even calling for my removal) strikes me as  
> strange since I did not mention a specific entity that should question  
> their own posts.  This unconscious reaction seems to me to verify my  
> original post. So now that that is cleared up, I have this question:
> For a poilitics of the left to not only continue to exist (which it  
> seems to barely be doing at this point) but became viable once again it  
> seems that we should re-think the conditions that we find ourselves  
> within today, and how these conditions differ significantly from the  
> time of the 60's, a time when most of the philosophers that we are drawn  
> to are writing and/or beginning to formulate a thought, or series of  
> thoughts. Is idenity, the signifying language system, and so one, truly  
> what (to use a sort of out of fashion term) oppresses us and, more  
> importantly, the third-, forth- world? I am thinking of this in terms of  
> D & G's use of and understanding of Marx.  Can we not understand Capital  
> today, at the beginning of the 21st century, as already opperating on a  
> level of non-identity/a-signification? Yes, capital must always  
> reterritorialize (the revolution of the means of production feeds the  
> desire that capitalism has promised to fulfill) but what if it no longer  
> opperates under the signs of identity?
> So this is my question:
> What has changed since the May '68 in terms of our conditions for  
> political thought and action?
> sid
> "Speed is the elegance of thought, which mocks stupidity, heavy and  
> slow. Intellegence thinks and says the unexpected; it moves with the  
> fly.  A fool is defined by predictability."   Michel Serres

Erstellt mit Operas revolutionärem E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/m2/

More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list