What in the hell …

Reading Ranciere still, found a quote I’d forgotten, from the German Ideology:

“[L]ife involves before everything else eating and drinking, housing, clothing and various other things. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life.” (more…)

To know how to gamble one must, of course, know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. How does one learn this? (more…)

The coolest thing in the world…

http://www.addictinggames.com/whackyourboss.html

This weekend I was a trainer at this thing at a lefty library space. I stumbled across a photocopy of “As We See It” and “As We Don’t See It” in a stack of pamphlets. These are by the old UK group Solidarity. (These were the Castoriadis people in England, with links to S ou B, not to be confused with the soft trot — ex trot? — US group called Solidarity who are around today.) I started leafing through. I read this years ago but had forgotten it. It’s really quite good. For those who aren’t familiar with it, it’s pasted here. (more…)

For Spanish readers, and interview with Paolo Virno by Colectivo Situaciones. Notes by yours truly forthcoming in English, but don’t hold your breath. (more…)

In an earlier post I took notes on this, with an eye toward using it as a metaphor which I could use to open up questions about the understanding of politics in Marx(ism). (more…)

Does it happen in the base or superstructure? Some notes pending a review of some Althusser stuff. (more…)

Guattari quote I like (via).

Felix Guattari: I have never taken seriously the notion that we have outgrown Marxism and that we are now on the verge of a new political era. I have never considered ideas, theories or ideologies as anything but instruments or tools. Whence this expression, which has had a certain success and has since been used by Michel Foucault, that ideas and concepts are all part of a “tool box.” As tools they can be changed, borrowed, stolen or used for another purpose. So what does it mean, “the end of Marxism”? Nothing, or only that certain Marxist tools are no longer working, that others are in need of review, that others continue to be perfectly valid. Hence it would be stupid to junk them all. All the more so in that re-evaluating these concepts means re-examining them - exactly as a re-evaluation of Einstein’s theories includes a re-examination of Newton’s. One can’t say that Newtonianism is totally dead. We are dealing here with a “rhizome” of instruments; certain branches of the rhizome collapse, little sprouts begin to proliferate, etc. For me Marxism in general has never existed. I have sometimes borrowed or adapted some Marxist concepts I could put to good use. Moreover, I like reading Marx. He’s a great writer. As an author he’s unbeatable.”

Also, on other matters two posts to remember to revisit at a slower and more slept time, here and here.