Comments on Revolutionary Mind by bob

Wasn't really referring to "you're". Imisspell as a matter of corse. But rather with the assertion of intellegent writers not being vivid. This comment clarifies "writer" being "philosopher". This is a more intresting assertion, but one that I'mstill notready to gt on board with.

For my part, I found Scott's "You’re visuals are so unusually vivid for a writer with your intellectual capacity." problematic. The 2 interpetations I came up with are equally improbable.

Smart writers are usually not able to convey vivid visuals. Colin is not very smart.

Now if Scott was referring to my intellectual capacity, things fall into place quite easily

Yet in a different sense, it’s nothing that Robin himself has not already said or almost said: To trace the workings of the reactionary mind in history up to the present already delineates and, where necessary re-invents, the opposite – in history, and up to the present.

My relfex is to go to some combination fo neuro stuff and Buddhism to delinate these issuesi in other terms. While this may provide guidance on what to do on a personal level, it provides no clear path on a political level. But still leaves the problem of what to do.

But think that the the unsaid you describe contributes, but does not define a similar problem for the political Left. The collapse of the Marxist discourse being part of the general cultural vocabulary is also an obstacle to figuring out what to do. OWS somewhat illustrates this, although it may also create a space for the discsuuion to reemerge.

Before OWS Zizek had similar musings ending with this:

The journal in which Gramsci published his writings in the early 1920s was called L’Ordine nuovo (The New Order)—a title which was later appropriated by the extreme Right. Rather than seeing this later appropriation as revealing the “truth” of Gramsci’s use of the title—abandoning it as running counter to the rebellious freedom of an authentic Left—we should return to it as an index of the hard problem of defining the new order any revolution will have to establish after its success. In short, our times can be characterized as none other than Stalin characterized the atom bomb: not for those with weak nerves.

Communism is today not the name of a solution but the name of a problem: the problem of the commons in all its dimensions—the commons of nature as the substance of our life, the problem of our biogenetic commons, the problem of our cultural commons (“intellectual property”), and, last but not least, the problem of the commons as that universal space of humanity from which no one should be excluded. Whatever the solution might be, it will have to solve this problem.