freecooperation mailinglist archive

 <

> 

RE: An Otherwar Is Possible

Mathew Kabatow

Oct 29, 2003 22:38 PST



A response to the list, and I will try to go in of appearance off of Jamie's
post which I think encapsulates many of the ideas put forward thus far.

  
 In my experience, organisation at a variety of moments within the movement
 
often engages-- both in terms of discourse and practice-- the formal problems of
organisation. This, I think, is consequent on the fact that there is not yet a
co-operative form sufficient to the political necessities of the moment.

It is interesting because I have been studying --soon to complete my MFA--
at UCSD and working primarily with Jean-Pierre Gorin, former collaborator of
Godard (the other half of the Dziga Vertov group), May 68 instigator, and
fast to foot with either political or film organization of this matter since
a long time. In one of his seminars on Fassbinder --and please don't take
this description of late 60's and 70's practice as some glossy eyed view at
a mythical past, but perhaps there are some similarities, is 'not' Negri too
of this generation?--is that if you look at any of the credit sequences of
those films, it can quickly be ascertained that the script, the set, the
location, the concept were all either lifted and transformed elsewhere --in
the case of "Katzelmacher, Fassbinder took a 5 second idea of Straub and
made first wrote piece for theatre and then for film-- or produced in
collaboration, which carried on throughout this spasmatic movie making
tangent. Speaking about this collective practice, Gorin basically said that
Fassbinder and co did not waste a second on the discussion of 'how' to work
together, apart from the running knowledge that each 'participant', would
bring 'only' what they could bring to the set, but rather in very Mickey
Rooney fashion, had a little money, had some cameras, had some ideas and
decided to "put on a show". What, in some senses, running into the darkness
produced was a series of films that struck hard, real hard against racism in
post WW2 Germany, the lives of the homosexual couple, and the viciousness of
interpersonal relationships, usually involving a sacrifice at the hands of a
small group of conspirators. With this as a counter point--and it is
difficult to say in retrospect that what was done in these films, at the
time was 'not' difficult to do--and in light of Jamie's comment above I
think that what is both lacking (rather lets say in development) are BOTH
the co-operative forms, AND the political necessities of the moment. When I
say political necessities, although there have been some interesting
comments made by Christopher regarding the need for more tight-knit
organizational activity amongst the activist community as opposed to the
unregulated flow of input and direction from something like an 'indymedia';
I also think that the bug-bears of liberalism, haven't quite worked
themselves out yet. Meaning that, there is still enough liquid assets
circling the globe from the mid-90's and continuing to bring, everything and
anything to the market that it is still unclear (yet very clear), where
critique needs to be made, and where action has to take place --I leave this
to be picked up by another list-member more knowledgeable in this subject
matter.


  
 That's true, but it's also true that what runs in, across and through those
 
temporary constitutions and dissolutions are individuals who make a lot of the
running in deciding what happens, where and when-- the obverse of 'flash mob'
spontaneity.

I have recently read the essay by Diderot called "Encyclopedia" which
basically outlines his methodology for how this enormous process of
gathering was to take place. The first criticism he clears from the table is
that 'he' and he alone is going to catalogue the world of finite, yet
infinitely expandable knowledge himself, and secondly he clears away any
notions that he is going to work with anyone but, those specialists in each
field that are able to best represent the subject matter at hand. Meaning
that once given the task --in this case amassing numerous volumes of the
'right' arguments-- these individuals would work together, both within
groupings of their own field and towards the greater encyclopedia, with an
acknowledgement that each had an indispensable, yet distinct quality to
bring to the whole, and a quality that was not necessarily understood by
everyone in the working group. The object of the encyclopedia is clear and
direct, yet extremely vague and problematic in that is asks; how do 'we'
cobble together this multiplicity of units to form one body that is
representative of the knowledge of our time? Could this not be said about
the political and activist work taking place at this time?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872204863/qid=1067494714/sr=1
-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-0561444-5373461?v=glance&s=books

  
 'We're' not just horribly like 'them'- 'we' _are_ 'them' in many respects.
 

I think this a good point. What is the main feature of capital, even in its
dematerialization? Movement and cluster. The business men and women of the
world crowd airport terminals, connected via cell and wireless to their own
managerial groups, responsible for growth within the general vicinity that
they work --vicinity of colleagues, contracts etc.--; deals and contacts
made in London, Bonn, Barbados, San Diego. Here is the reterritorialization
and subsequent deterritorialization as soon as another interests decides
that an investment can be made, of scale, previously unavailable, over
'this' terrain.

The activist group, the film team, the home-brew software trio, again having
to relearn and reapply upon each and every pass, shifting ground for the
restless.


  
 Wilhelm Reich in his study of facism. And the self-subjecting can't be ever be
 
subversive... can it?

Has anyone seen this? It is a four part documentary put out by BBC last year
called "Century of the Self" that charts the changing notion of the self and
of the subject since the time of mass marketing and public relations of
Edward Bernais --a la Freud--, through Wilhelm Reich and the Human Potential
Movement, ending with the niche market political campaigns of both Clinton
and Blair. It is quite amazing stuff, in that it provides the reverse or
rather positive template for how the subject, how the political subject, the
subject that is feared by the state, is subdued, satiated and calmed to the
point where the only thing that matters in the world is whether or not a
v-chip will be installed on the television so the 'kids' won't see no sex
nor hear no swears. There is an interesting section on 70's Berkeley, with
an interview with I think a member of The Weather Underground (or another
group in thereabouts) about the realization, really the 'State' in terms of
guns, mobility really could do what it wanted with them; and the aftermath
which is really the spawning grounds of identity politics which said "if the
state can't be changed from the outside, then through 'positive or
libratory' changes on the inside, the world can become a better place --->
hence complete atomization of the political subject (I'm not saying there
weren't some valuable things learned along the way but it didn't help with a
collective sense of things in the least bit).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtm
l

+ + +

Apologies for not posting sooner. Just a bit about myself. I'm currently
finishing my MFA at UCSD; I've spend much time as an intern in the new media
program at Banff mostly writing coverage on the conference events, and I
have done some work with Rhizome in the past. I'm interested in this
discussion of collaboration and collectivity very much, but more from the
cultural or symbolic end of things as opposed to the infrastructural as I do
video and film in my art practice. I also hope that I can be of assistance
and contribute in a full way to this discussion.

Sincerest Regards,
Mathew

 <

>