Re: [microsound] Re: futurists + fascistas

["tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxx>]

zot,
 
>> However, I think it's fair to qualify Mussolini's fascism from Hitler's Nazi
>> party and its fascism. The level of street violence practiced by _any_
>> political party at the time is unbelievable, whether fascist, imperialist,
>> communist, anarchist, etc. There is a context to be carefully observed here
>> because it is twisted with our own.
> 
> I would be very careful in attempting to put a positive gloss on Mussolini's
> Fascism.

Just for the record: I never mentioned such a positivity. Only a
distinction.

> The politics of Mussolini's Fascist party privileged the rights of
> the strong over the weak in a similar way to the Nazis. Hence they
> victimised the sick and disabled, Gypsies, etc. They were just as inhuman in
> this regard.

Agreed--

More aptly, Human, All Too Human (Nietzsche).


> Nor should we abandon
> the works of Heidegger and De Man, who also fell under the spell of Fascism.

Then there's T.S. Eliot, whom I think was profoundly more belligerently
fascist than de Man (whom I would hesitate to call a fascist, after finally
getting around to reading his contested newspaper columns), and Heidegger,
whom I think thought was doing something rather different than what was
going on, his Rectorship speech notwithstanding. Eliot actively supported
the fascists.

But again, historical context: other fascist supporters included the ex-King
of England, Edward VIII, and a good number of European politicians who saw
it as a way to revitalize the glory of Europe. This doesn't excuse it. It
just places it in the same light we need to view neoconservatism today: a
lot of people accept it and like it.

In one of the 2003 issues of PMLA (you'll excuse me if I can't remember.. I
tried to find it but I think I lent away my copies) there is a new
translation of one of Eliot's Cantos with a summary as to the radio
broadcasts he was producing at the time for Mussolini. The imagery is
extraordinarily violent. And I so love "The Wasteland"!

In any case, I will try and hunt it down. The connection of Eliot's
difficult imagery (he alluded to much in few words) to radio (his rants, his
broadcasts) I think are interesting here in terms of connecting to the
emerging systems of dissemination, ie of technology and its system of
spreading itself around, which we often take for granted today. Microsound
and digital systems are a descendent of this thinking .. Brian Massumi has
an interesting chapter on the analogue/digital distinction worth reading in
_Parables for the Virtual_ where, although he defends the digital from being
called totalitarian, recognises its strictly delimiting schema of
_possibilities_.

For Massumi, the digital is _less_ connected to the virtual (potential) than
the analogue. This is, btw, a strong argument against anyone trying to
connect microsound to Deleuze. The internet is NOT a rhizome; it is a system
of possibilities. Its potential, argues Massumi, is always analogue: it
arises when WE interact with a system of possibilities.

I think this can tie into thoughts on futurism, early radio, Marinetti...

There's more to it but I've got to run.

best,

    tV
 


tobias c. van Veen -----------++++
http://www.quadrantcrossing.org --
http://www.thisistheonlyart.com --
McGill Communication + Philosophy
--- New School Philosophy --------
ICQ: 18766209 | AIM: thesaibot +++ 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org