Marriage Proposal (Type 3)

My love, I have met women, I have loved women, I have been attracted to women but never ever have I met a woman as beautiful, both from inside and outside, as smart, as charming, as alive, and as loving as you. And when someone finds perfection, which I did believe did not exist before I met you, one does not want to let it go. So, I, wretched and miserable as I am, would be honored, and not only honored, because it is not honor I am looking for; I would be the happiest man in the world and here happiest is not an expression but an empirical fact if you would marry me.

The evils of PDA (Public Display of Affection)

Now how does this express freedom, democracy, and human rights? And people wonder why there are crimes in American schools. It is the start of a promising generation of perfect individuals...

Keep in mind this is neither in Nazi Germany, nor in Saudi Arabia.

Where no hugs are allowed (courtesy of angry arab)

“Resistance is Surrender”

Many argue that the present dominant discourse of global capitalism allows for no revolution, and that resistance can no longer be carried out through violence. Instead change must be performed from within the prevailing system. This perspective is more a theoretical basis than an actual strategy, in fact within the same framework one finds conflicting views as to which strategy must be adopted. Moreover, there is a larger division within the left, on one hand those who adopt this view, and on the other, those who adopt the view whereas change can still be achieved by force. Whether one must be in power to subvert it, or outside of power, there are great issues related to the failure of the leftist model that have not yet been resolved. The trauma left by the failure of communism in the Soviet Union, its transformation back into capitalism in China, and its degeneration into a revolutionary monarchy in Cuba has not yet been overcome. This is clear when it comes to the lack of a leftist ‘ideology’, program, or clearly articulated political, economical, and social alternatives.

The crisis of the left is perhaps synonymous to the crisis of democracy; their ascendancy to the status of domination, institutionalization, and namely to the State itself, was the foundation of their collapse. While the form taken by institutionalized communism in the Soviet Union was the first instance of its collapse, liberal democracy’s present status as an oppressive and socio-economically unjust institution (exemplified by the direction taken by the United States’ internal and external policies) is arguably the first instance of its demise.

The common criticism against the left is, first, that it is divided into radically opposed forces and second, that it lacks a palpable solution. One of the debates stirred up by the coming American presidential elections is the choice of which strategy must be adopted in order to redress liberal democracy. In other words, what must the Democrats do? Debates about the role of the left in dealing with internal economical policies, the welfare state, war, pollution and poverty in the world seem to be taking place in a parallel world of theory, in the safe distance of academic discourse, and in disregard to the structural transformation of discourses of resistance and namely the spectacular rise of the religious both in parallel with, and in opposition to global capitalism.

In an insightful article in the London Review of Books, Slavoj Zizek addresses the responsibility of the left in providing a viable strategy that can counter the growing force of capital.

Resistance Is Surrender
Slavoj Žižek
One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Mao’s attempt, in the Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return.
Today’s Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its political supplement, liberal democracy. It might, for example, accept the hegemony, but continue to fight for reform within its rules (this is Third Way social democracy).
Or, it accepts that the hegemony is here to stay, but should nonetheless be resisted from its ‘interstices’.
Or, it accepts the futility of all struggle, since the hegemony is so all-encompassing that nothing can really be done except wait for an outburst of ‘divine violence’ – a revolutionary version of Heidegger’s ‘only God can save us.’
Or, it recognises the temporary futility of the struggle. In today’s triumph of global capitalism, the argument goes, true resistance is not possible, so all we can do till the revolutionary spirit of the global working class is renewed is defend what remains of the welfare state, confronting those in power with demands we know they cannot fulfil, and otherwise withdraw into cultural studies, where one can quietly pursue the work of criticism.
Or, it emphasises the fact that the problem is a more fundamental one, that global capitalism is ultimately an effect of the underlying principles of technology or ‘instrumental reason’.
Or, it posits that one can undermine global capitalism and state power, not by directly attacking them, but by refocusing the field of struggle on everyday practices, where one can ‘build a new world’; in this way, the foundations of the power of capital and the state will be gradually undermined, and, at some point, the state will collapse (the exemplar of this approach is the Zapatista movement).
Or, it takes the ‘postmodern’ route, shifting the accent from anti-capitalist struggle to the multiple forms of politico-ideological struggle for hegemony, emphasising the importance of discursive re-articulation.
Or, it wagers that one can repeat at the postmodern level the classical Marxist gesture of enacting the ‘determinate negation’ of capitalism: with today’s rise of ‘cognitive work’, the contradiction between social production and capitalist relations has become starker than ever, rendering possible for the first time ‘absolute democracy’ (this would be Hardt and Negri’s position).
These positions are not presented as a way of avoiding some ‘true’ radical Left politics – what they are trying to get around is, indeed, the lack of such a position. This defeat of the Left is not the whole story of the last thirty years, however. There is another, no less surprising, lesson to be learned from the Chinese Communists’ presiding over arguably the most explosive development of capitalism in history, and from the growth of West European Third Way social democracy. It is, in short: we can do it better. In the UK, the Thatcher revolution was, at the time, chaotic and impulsive, marked by unpredictable contingencies. It was Tony Blair who was able to institutionalise it, or, in Hegel’s terms, to raise (what first appeared as) a contingency, a historical accident, into a necessity. Thatcher wasn’t a Thatcherite, she was merely herself; it was Blair (more than Major) who truly gave form to Thatcherism.
The response of some critics on the postmodern Left to this predicament is to call for a new politics of resistance. Those who still insist on fighting state power, let alone seizing it, are accused of remaining stuck within the ‘old paradigm’: the task today, their critics say, is to resist state power by withdrawing from its terrain and creating new spaces outside its control. This is, of course, the obverse of accepting the triumph of capitalism. The politics of resistance is nothing but the moralising supplement to a Third Way Left.
Simon Critchley’s recent book, Infinitely Demanding, is an almost perfect embodiment of this position.* For Critchley, the liberal-democratic state is here to stay. Attempts to abolish the state failed miserably; consequently, the new politics has to be located at a distance from it: anti-war movements, ecological organisations, groups protesting against racist or sexist abuses, and other forms of local self-organisation. It must be a politics of resistance to the state, of bombarding the state with impossible demands, of denouncing the limitations of state mechanisms. The main argument for conducting the politics of resistance at a distance from the state hinges on the ethical dimension of the ‘infinitely demanding’ call for justice: no state can heed this call, since its ultimate goal is the ‘real-political’ one of ensuring its own reproduction (its economic growth, public safety, etc). ‘Of course,’ Critchley writes,
history is habitually written by the people with the guns and sticks and one cannot expect to defeat them with mocking satire and feather dusters. Yet, as the history of ultra-leftist active nihilism eloquently shows, one is lost the moment one picks up the guns and sticks. Anarchic political resistance should not seek to mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty it opposes.
So what should, say, the US Democrats do? Stop competing for state power and withdraw to the interstices of the state, leaving state power to the Republicans and start a campaign of anarchic resistance to it? And what would Critchley do if he were facing an adversary like Hitler? Surely in such a case one should ‘mimic and mirror the archic violent sovereignty’ one opposes? Shouldn’t the Left draw a distinction between the circumstances in which one would resort to violence in confronting the state, and those in which all one can and should do is use ‘mocking satire and feather dusters’? The ambiguity of Critchley’s position resides in a strange non sequitur: if the state is here to stay, if it is impossible to abolish it (or capitalism), why retreat from it? Why not act with(in) the state? Why not accept the basic premise of the Third Way? Why limit oneself to a politics which, as Critchley puts it, ‘calls the state into question and calls the established order to account, not in order to do away with the state, desirable though that might well be in some utopian sense, but in order to better it or attenuate its malicious effect’?
These words simply demonstrate that today’s liberal-democratic state and the dream of an ‘infinitely demanding’ anarchic politics exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic agents do the ethical thinking, and the state does the work of running and regulating society. Critchley’s anarchic ethico-political agent acts like a superego, comfortably bombarding the state with demands; and the more the state tries to satisfy these demands, the more guilty it is seen to be. In compliance with this logic, the anarchic agents focus their protest not on open dictatorships, but on the hypocrisy of liberal democracies, who are accused of betraying their own professed principles.
The big demonstrations in London and Washington against the US attack on Iraq a few years ago offer an exemplary case of this strange symbiotic relationship between power and resistance. Their paradoxical outcome was that both sides were satisfied. The protesters saved their beautiful souls: they made it clear that they don’t agree with the government’s policy on Iraq. Those in power calmly accepted it, even profited from it: not only did the protests in no way prevent the already-made decision to attack Iraq; they also served to legitimise it. Thus George Bush’s reaction to mass demonstrations protesting his visit to London, in effect: ‘You see, this is what we are fighting for, so that what people are doing here – protesting against their government policy – will be possible also in Iraq!’
It is striking that the course on which Hugo Chávez has embarked since 2006 is the exact opposite of the one chosen by the postmodern Left: far from resisting state power, he grabbed it (first by an attempted coup, then democratically), ruthlessly using the Venezuelan state apparatuses to promote his goals. Furthermore, he is militarising the barrios, and organising the training of armed units there. And, the ultimate scare: now that he is feeling the economic effects of capital’s ‘resistance’ to his rule (temporary shortages of some goods in the state-subsidised supermarkets), he has announced plans to consolidate the 24 parties that support him into a single party. Even some of his allies are sceptical about this move: will it come at the expense of the popular movements that have given the Venezuelan revolution its élan? However, this choice, though risky, should be fully endorsed: the task is to make the new party function not as a typical state socialist (or Peronist) party, but as a vehicle for the mobilisation of new forms of politics (like the grass roots slum committees). What should we say to someone like Chávez? ‘No, do not grab state power, just withdraw, leave the state and the current situation in place’? Chávez is often dismissed as a clown – but wouldn’t such a withdrawal just reduce him to a version of Subcomandante Marcos, whom many Mexican leftists now refer to as ‘Subcomediante Marcos’? Today, it is the great capitalists – Bill Gates, corporate polluters, fox hunters – who ‘resist’ the state.
The lesson here is that the truly subversive thing is not to insist on ‘infinite’ demands we know those in power cannot fulfil. Since they know that we know it, such an ‘infinitely demanding’ attitude presents no problem for those in power: ‘So wonderful that, with your critical demands, you remind us what kind of world we would all like to live in. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where we have to make do with what is possible.’ The thing to do is, on the contrary, to bombard those in power with strategically well-selected, precise, finite demands, which can’t be met with the same excuse.
Note
* Verso, 168 pp., £17.99, May, 978 1 84467 121 2.
Slavoj Žižek is a dialectical-materialist philosopher and psychoanalyst. He also co-directs the International Centre for Humanities at Birkbeck College. The Parallax View appeared last year.

Lebanese Interests: Democracy

Some preliminary statements:
- There are no such things as objectivity, neutrality, or impartiality.
- An analysis is never apolitical; every analysis carries within it a political standpoint that favors one force over the other.
- Critical analysis is usually set to favor the dominated/resistant standpoint.
- Every argument entails a counter-argument, not the potentiality of a counter argument.


The Lebanese presidential elections are on the doorstep. Consecutive failures of diverse international, Arab, and internal initiatives to get over the political deadlock in the country, have left the French initiative with little hope of success. Nonetheless all the attention is on the outcome of the coming days. However, there is a greater and more dangerous dimension to the crisis in this fragile country: a social, political, and sectarian polarization that opposes two irreconcilable discourses. Great controversy arises every time one writes about Lebanon. One reason is the extreme polarization, a factor that perturbs dialogue and puts in place two mutually eliminating opinions that diverge on a deep structural level.

One cannot look at Lebanon or at the Middle East in general while disregarding the impact of colonial power and the dynamics of power relations. The initial disagreement between the two prevalent discourses in Lebanon is their look at the role of colonial power. This division is extended to the whole dynamics of Arab politics and inter-Arab conflicts. On the one hand, there is an opinion that grants the dominant Other (the ‘democratic West’) a benevolent role on the path towards freedom. In this discourse freedom is synonymous to liberalism. Here one must differentiate between two notions of liberalism: economical liberalism, and social liberalism. The one can exist without the other, and often do (an example of economical liberalism that is far from being a social liberalism is Saudi Arabia, and most of the Gulf States). In Lebanon the proponents of this discourse are divided between those who adopt liberalism in its double sense and those who are great opponents of this model and rather opt for economical liberalism linked to social conservatism. On the other hand, there exists the opposite opinion that attributes to the Other (the ‘colonial West’) a malevolent role that blocks the path towards freedom. In this discourse freedom is synonymous to liberation. Liberation is a democratic rather than liberal aim. Nonetheless the two can coexist.

The strategies differ greatly between the two camps. The first one, represented by the 14 of March forces and Fouad Sanioura’s government, is set in the greater discourse of what the American administration recently termed “Arab moderation”. In other words these are the proponents of the subjugation to the West as both an economical and political stabilizing choice. The argument of this group is that ‘we’ are too weak to oppose the powerful Other therefore must acknowledge this position by adhering to its interests and politics. Democratic choice in this case becomes synonymous to the adherence to the Other’s values rather than to the popular majority’s choice (here the example of the Palestinian elections and the victory of Hamas are easily compared to the Lebanese case). The second group, represented by the opposition, namely Hezbollah and the Free Patriotic Movement, is placed within the category termed “terrorist” by the same American administration, and represents the forces that oppose the Other’s domination. The interests of the Other are seen as the main destabilizing factor because they are in contradiction with the interests of the popular majority. In other words, the subjugation to the other is seen as a long term destabilizing factor and the cause and effect schema is inverted. Economical and political stability can only be achieved through the neutralization of the Other’s interests – thus through conflict with the Other. The self is not seen as weak, rather it is empowered and represented as capable of liberation and of defeating the Other (in here the Hezbollah discourse notably during and after the summer of 2006 war provides a good example).

However, the notion of liberation is not so much an idealistic aim as much as it is a strategy of resistance that seeks first and foremost to become dominant. Here history provides examples of liberation movements who sought the support of great dominant powers in order to oppose another dominant power. The Soviet Union’s relations with liberation movements all around the world is the most salient example. This dynamics of power reflects the role of Iran in the current Lebanese situation, whereas a common enemy provides the ground for a support that is different in its economical and political groundings from the traditional unilateral colonial model. In other words, the discourse of the opposition considers that Iran’s role in the Lebanese crisis cannot be seen as the mirror image of that of the United States of America or of Europe. Nonetheless, it is in no way a moral action, nor is it disinterested; rather, Iran’s interests are seen as momentarily intersecting with those of the opposition forces inasmuch as it refuses the same Other’s interests. In other words, the opposition discourse pretends that whereas the West’s interests are structurally opposed to those of the majority of the Lebanese population, Iran’s interests are momentarily convergent to those of this majority. However, these converging interests are not structurally convergent, on the contrary, in the normal course of things these interests will be, like those of the West, structurally divergent.

This opinion can be inverted, and one can substitute Iran for the West and reciprocally. In fact, this is exactly what the government’s discourse does. It pretends that the interests of the West and those of the people converge momentarily, while those of Syria (the ‘colonial Other’ in this case) and Iran are structurally divergent. This, perhaps, is equally true and is certainly the basic reflection of the radical polarization of the two opinions. However, there exists one solution to define the interests of the Lebanese population, and that is to let it speak. In other words, democracy pretends to represent the interests of the people by giving the people the right to decide where their interests lie. The only viable solution for the Lebanese deadlock is to let the majority speak about its interests and choose, directly, which discourse represents its interests.

Democracy 101

The United States of America in its efforts to educate the third world countries on the workings of democracy has threatened to sanction anyone who opposes or destabilizes the government of Fouad Sanioura in Lebanon. In other words democracy is the complete adherence to a government without the possibility of opposition. Any act of opposition is against democracy. It seems that totalitarianism is not so different than democracy after all. Stalin would have been proud of the little George Bush.

Economy

While the populace in the wretched country is drowning in petty and naive discussions about whose sect is more virtuous and whose is more sectarian, no attention is paid by the citizen to the economy. As many theories of politics, society, and power suggest, the economy is a factor that has far wider influences than on mere financial issues. Economy does not simply regulate the flow of money, budgets, and living standards. It regulates the political system, social interactions, and the forms of conflicts.

In Lebanon people are too preoccupied with disgraceful and retarded polemics about whose leader is more corrupted, or whose leader can be called more names. This refers specifically to the governmental forces in their approach to any criticism, where it is shocking to see that for the last two years there has not been a single scientific answer to the budgetary deficit, the excessive social, economical and security problems, and the growing popular opposition to the current situation. On one hand the government disregards the massive popular support of the opposition (which in the smallest accounts has reached 55 percent of the population) and, in an utmost undemocratic stance, rejects half its population as being ‘Pro-Syrian’ (as if this is a crime in itself). On the other hand the government fails to understand, or neglects the fact that the growing opposition is not simply political, but has a considerable and increasing economical motivation due to surreal economical policies this government keeps adopting making the Lebanese economy one of the most phenomenally failed in the world.

It is unfortunate to see that those who are the most affected by the economical policies of the neo-liberal Sanioura government (and Rafik Hariri before him), are their staunchest supporters. While the people become poorer due to an absurd taxation policy (where the poor pay taxes to the rich bank holders, making those profit from the growing interest on the public debts), they become more dependent on the charity of the rich governing political class. Paradoxically this is how the feudal system works; peasants are exploited by the landlord becoming more and more dependent on him.

What is pitiful is the defensive discourse adopted by the supporters of the government. These are divided into two levels: one is the class that is profiting from the economical system, namely rich investors, bank owners, and the bulk of the corrupted political class who is still part of the government (others who are no longer profiting from the corruption are now in the opposition), the second is a growing poor class who adopt a discourse that defends the government on mainly sectarian grounds.

The political crisis in Lebanon cannot be solved unless the economical crisis is addressed. In other words a radical and complete reviewing of the economical system has to be undertaken.

Georges Corm provides an insightful analysis of this issue in a 2 part article published in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar.

Part 1
Part 2

Fragments 2

1. As part of the great efforts spent by the American administration to prevent any foreign interference in Lebanese affairs and especially the forthcoming presidential elections, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the Lebanese government about giving any concessions to the opposition. Of course the warning came along with a description of what the future president must and must not do, and the acceptable program he/she can be allowed to pursue. One might think that these flagrant statements of a foreign Secretary of State are blatant interferences in the affairs of Lebanon and more specifically in the presidential elections. However, the American interference is aimed at countering any other interference; therefore it is not interference but a gesture of good will, not to mention that we Lebanese people boast about our cosmopolitan attributes, so no one is foreign anyway. Moreover everyone should know that it was us who asked the American administration to interfere as we had asked the Syrians to interfere before that, and the French before both. This, after all, is crucial to the protection of the Cedar Revolution and its “Freedom, Sovereignty, Independence” slogan.

2. Beirut MP Ammar Houri is the first disciple of Mufti al-Jozo. In a compelling work of argumentation he proposed a new vision of justice and philosophy of law. In a very telling statement Houri inverted the principles of justice while simultaneously shattering the principle of separation of powers. The Beirut MP who lacks any political experience, not to mention any juridical or political knowledge, was shocked by Nasrallah’s “insistence to consider the accused innocent until proven guilty by the court”. Of course Mr. Houri is apparently too busy to watch American movies on television, where he can learn that this is exactly the principle of justice, namely that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The good aspect of this ignorance is that it means the MP is too busy to watch TV, hopefully devoting his precious time to the service of the people. Furthermore the MP added that “considering the accused innocent implies that Israel is the only accused party.” Of course this reflects the Bush-like view of the world as a dichotomy of good and evil, where there is always only two choices, the third choice is inconceivable; the frame of reference of the new MP does not include the notion of third choice. However, the great addition to the philosophy of law that al-Jozo’s disciple was kind enough to make in public is his insistence that a judge cannot rule the accused innocent even though there is no physical proof since there is a clear political conviction that they are guilty. In other words what the MP who apparently lacks the minimum knowledge about the structure of political power and the basic principle of separation of powers (which a 15 year old kid should know about if he/she attends school and pays attention to the teacher) is suggesting is simple: the judicial power is subjected to the beliefs of the political power, be it legislative or executive. What he is suggesting is that people as ignorant as him should have the power to exercise justice; if this happens it would give a new meaning to the expression “justice is blind”.

No comment

Translation: "Jaajaa is out, Aoun is back, Sanioura has become greedy, Lahoud is staying, I am leaving, and the car is for sale."

Fragments

1. We Lebanese people suffer from a severe aversion to dealing with our own crimes. There are two images. The first one is that of a ‘modern Lebanese young lady’ smiling and cheering while brandishing an army flag. Around her, there are more modern young citizens all proud of their national army. They believe in the moral superiority of their army. The young Lebanese soldiers imitate their American counterparts; they act like stars; they are wearing sunglasses. The first error in this image is its focus on the soldiers coming back home, rather than on the battlefield in the aftermath of a long combat and on the victims of the combat. It reflects the images of the American soldiers coming back home while disregarding the crimes they committed during their voyage. We do not want to see the destruction, the violence, and the crimes our young soldiers committed. The second image is that of a wall. The room is full of debris; war has certainly passed through this house. Some toys are on the flour; they are burnt but still conserve some colors. A sentence is written on the wall; it is racist, violent, and reflects great hate for the people who used to live here. It was written by a soldier. In Palestine, Israeli soldiers and more commonly settlers, often leave racist statements on the walls of buildings they storm. In Iraq, the same practice was reported. Racism and hate and their expression on walls are features of occupation. Occupation is the act of occupying someone else’s land by force and armed presence. In Lebanon, the army acted as an occupation force while on its own soil. The Palestinian camps are another country, or so it seems. It seems that Palestinians are occupied even when they are not in their own country. They are an occupied people without a land. It is known that nationalist fervor prevents self criticism.

2. It seems that the casting for the new colonizer has started. The selection committee will be formed by a number of high ranking Lebanese leaders as well as the highest religious authorities. They will define the new colonial power that will be in charge of the country for the coming decade or so. There are many applicants: Americans and Iranians are the most prestigious, Syrians and French are counting on their experience, Saudis are bribing everyone, and the Israelis are too shy to apply.

3. Is it possible to acknowledge occupation without acknowledging the legitimacy of resistance against this occupation?

4. It is hard to convince people that they are racist when they actually are racist. When one is racist one does not acknowledge the fact that those he/she is racist against are actually equals and can therefore be victims of wrongful racism. Black people had been persecuted for centuries without it being seen as ‘wrong’; rather it was ‘normal’ for them to be inferior. Political correctness no longer allows such explicit racism against black people; however, it is now ‘normal’ to represent Arabs and Muslims as inferiors.

5. It seems absurd that in the [civilized and democratic] West it is legitimate and common for one to openly support an army going to war, but illegitimate and excessively radical and violent to support guerrillas that oppose this army. It seems that even naming them resistance is a radical political statement.