caffentzis - review - power and terror in bomb philosophy - a review of joel kovel's against the...

8/12/2019 Caffentzis - Review - Power and Terror in Bomb Philosophy - A Review of Joel Kovel's Against the State of Nuclear

1/11

Review: Power and Terror in Bomb Philosophy: A Review of Joel Kovel's Against the State ofNuclear TerrorAuthor(s): C. George CaffentzisSource: Social Text, No. 19/20 (Autumn, 1988), pp. 305-314Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466192Accessed: 08/07/2010 01:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Duke University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/466192?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466192?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/11

Power and Terror in Bomb Philosophy:A Review of Joel Kovel'sAgainst the State ofNuclear Terror(London: Pan Books Ltd., 1983)

C. GEORGE CAFFENTZIS

The nuclear bomb has been the source of more "philosophy" than any othermachine since the steam engine. It seems to encourage the "philosophical instinct"of slavishness before capitalist power to an extraordinary extent. In England,we have the spectacle of one of the most respected historians of the Englishworking class, E.P. Thompson, creating a philosophy of "extermination" toexplain to the cohorts of the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) theevil source of their opponents' logic. In the ever fashion-conscious France, wehave Paul Virilio creating a "new" theory of war that incorporates the nuclearbomb into the general addiction for "speed" in the modern world. These two areexemplars of the return to a kind of analysis of "nuclear society" that had itsheyday in the 1950s although it has its roots in the reaction to the revolutionaryworking class movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Thenames of Weber, Simmel, the early Lukacs and Heidegger immediately springto mind when reading the musings of the "philosopher kings" of antinuclear war.In the climate of the defeat of the movements of the 1960s, the nostalgia for theideological flinching and "failure of nerve" of the early twentieth century appearsto be an overwhelming temptation. Every movement gets the "thinkers" itdeserves.

In the US, where ideological hand-me-downs from Europe are foreverpopular, the essay of Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, that opened up the80s might be a fitting example of these tendencies. But a book by Joel Kovel,Against the State ofNuclear Terror, s both more "leftish" and more "sophisticated,"so it will perhaps give the flavor of the American "debate" in a more unadulterateddose. In this review I will give a short synopsis of Kovel's argument and makesome comments upon it. Just for the record, Kovel is a psychotherapist basedin NYC and has been a worker in field of Freudo-Marx theory for some time.The prime analytic notion that Kovel posits is technocracy or "the nuclearstate ... is the ultimate development of technocracy in the political sphere."But what is "technocracy"? "Technocracy may be defined as science in the service









3050505


3/11

C. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzisof domination." Continuing this taxonomy further, capitalism is subsumableunder technocracy for it is, according to Kovel, a "manifestation" if it, How so?Kove answers with a questions, "For is not capital technocratic at heart-dominating the world through the forcible conversion of reality into number,i.e., money?" He continues:

Capitalismarosethrough a universalization f the calculatingattitude;and asit rose furtherand further, t increasinglydentified ts fortuneswith those ofthe machine.Moderncapitalistproductionhas as a result become completelyabsorbedby technocracy includingthe mechanization f work and its controlby "scientificmanagement").Further: "Capitalism involves the technological domination of two entities:human activities transformed into labor power, wages, surplus-value, and capitalitself; and nature, which is transformed into raw materials and pure quantity[sic]." Since, according to Kovel, human activity is an "expression of humannature," he concludes that technology is domination of nature tout court.But why should anyone want to "dominate nature"?Kovel finds the answerin a kind of original sin sprouting in the universal cradle of mankind. As a foetusand an infant we all apparently had an experience that Kovel, among others,describes as an experience of "unconditional omnipotence"--since all one's needsare immediately satisfied without effort-but with the end of infancy this "Edenic"state ends.

Before I go on to describe Kovel's analysis of the consequences of thisExpulsion from Eden something should be said of this conception of the firstexperiences of a human. That such a peculiar myth of a universal unconditionalomnipotence can be taken seriously by an adult in the late twentieth century ishard for me to comprehend. First, even if "all our immediate needs were satisfiedwithout effort," it seems farfetched and self-incriminating to call this a perceptionof "omnipotence." But more importantly, prior to this perception, what we knowabout the effects of the environment on the foetus, from brain damage causedby poor nutrition or starvation to physical traumas due to beatings and rapes,either marital or otherwise, of the mother, must convince us that the womb ishardly the automated pleasure dome that psychoanalysts imagine. Further, whenwe examine the actual life of infants around the planet one can hardly say thateven a fraction of their needs are met . . . and they know it.But even granting Kovel his "omnipotence" what happens when it ends? Thereaction is hatred, paranoia and a sense of persecution in the breast of the littlechild. In a decisive stage of this process, an attempt to use thought and magicgestures to bring the world back into the original state is ventured. It is in this

of domination." Continuing this taxonomy further, capitalism is subsumableunder technocracy for it is, according to Kovel, a "manifestation" if it, How so?Kove answers with a questions, "For is not capital technocratic at heart-dominating the world through the forcible conversion of reality into number,i.e., money?" He continues:



of domination." Continuing this taxonomy further, capitalism is subsumableunder technocracy for it is, according to Kovel, a "manifestation" if it, How so?Kove answers with a questions, "For is not capital technocratic at heart-dominating the world through the forcible conversion of reality into number,i.e., money?" He continues:



3060606


4/11

Powerand Terrorn BombPhilosophyowerand Terrorn BombPhilosophyowerand Terrorn BombPhilosophyreaction that the root of the "Cartesian-technocraticattitude" is found: a"grandioseself' surrounded by a necessary, but separated, nature which is mastered bymachines and numbers reaffirms the "lost omnipotence" of the foetus. The Bombis simply the most spectacular (and insane) product of this technocratic attitude,according to Kovel.But what of "us," the nontechnocrats, the working classes, the Blacks, thewomen of the world? What is the source of our passivity? Why do we let theFuture of Humanity be threatened? The essence of our passivity is "terror." AsKovel's aphorism puts it, "If our passivity be seen as a scar, nuclear terror is theoverseers' lash that put it there." He distinguishes sharply between terrorandfear;for after all fear is realistic and the first reaction to it is to destroy the object of ourfear if we have the capacity. Terror is something above and beyond fear. (Kovelmaintains the PLO, the Red Brigades and the IRA apply the same methods of"terror" as the superpowers do, by the way.) Terror requires the manipulation offantasies, what he calls the "rearranging of the structure of reality" in order to bean instrument of control. Nuclear weapons are not only instruments of fear (as allweapons are, according to Lao-tze) but they are an apparatus of psychologicalwarfare of the state on its own people. How does the state create these terrorizingfantasies in us? It is largely a play of shadow and light. Consider Kovel's list ofnuclear voodoo: (1) the continual modulation of the perception of the Bomb asboth all-destroying and as limited, (2) a continual pretense that the state can actuallyprotect the people against the Bomb, (3) but at the same time the state must keepa continual surveillance over society in order to persecute any nuclear "subversives",(4) there must be a dehumanized enemy, (5) the media must transmit all themessages of nuclear terror, (6) the cultural milieu must amplify the terror, e.g., avideo game like "Missile Command" validates the experience of nuclear war. Theuse of these techniques have turned the masses into quivering, terrorized jelly.So we get again the famous master/slave dialectic, this time with technocratic,nuclear-tipped masters and "us" as fantasizing, dream-manipulated dupes slavingour lives away. One wonders why the masters had to threaten to blow up so muchif they did not have something "real" to worry about. Though the picture of classdefeat in the US developed by certain journals like Midnight Notes may bedepressing, it is nothing compared to the apparently "hopeful" Kovel. For if theworking class was at one time winning, it can turn the balance of forces again inits favor, so to speak; with Kovel the story is more questionable, for consider hisimplications. Capitalism's "instrumental rationality,"which is the expression of themathematizing technocratic essence of the system, has become completely detachedand is now in the hands of paranoid, megalomaniacal rulers longing for a prenatalexperience of omnipotent unity. The "people," on the other side, are mesmerizedby the shadows on the video screen cave wall. Our quite reasonable fear of being

reaction that the root of the "Cartesian-technocraticattitude" is found: a"grandioseself' surrounded by a necessary, but separated, nature which is mastered bymachines and numbers reaffirms the "lost omnipotence" of the foetus. The Bombis simply the most spectacular (and insane) product of this technocratic attitude,according to Kovel.But what of "us," the nontechnocrats, the working classes, the Blacks, thewomen of the world? What is the source of our passivity? Why do we let theFuture of Humanity be threatened? The essence of our passivity is "terror." AsKovel's aphorism puts it, "If our passivity be seen as a scar, nuclear terror is theoverseers' lash that put it there." He distinguishes sharply between terrorandfear;for after all fear is realistic and the first reaction to it is to destroy the object of ourfear if we have the capacity. Terror is something above and beyond fear. (Kovelmaintains the PLO, the Red Brigades and the IRA apply the same methods of"terror" as the superpowers do, by the way.) Terror requires the manipulation offantasies, what he calls the "rearranging of the structure of reality" in order to bean instrument of control. Nuclear weapons are not only instruments of fear (as allweapons are, according to Lao-tze) but they are an apparatus of psychologicalwarfare of the state on its own people. How does the state create these terrorizingfantasies in us? It is largely a play of shadow and light. Consider Kovel's list ofnuclear voodoo: (1) the continual modulation of the perception of the Bomb asboth all-destroying and as limited, (2) a continual pretense that the state can actuallyprotect the people against the Bomb, (3) but at the same time the state must keepa continual surveillance over society in order to persecute any nuclear "subversives",(4) there must be a dehumanized enemy, (5) the media must transmit all themessages of nuclear terror, (6) the cultural milieu must amplify the terror, e.g., avideo game like "Missile Command" validates the experience of nuclear war. Theuse of these techniques have turned the masses into quivering, terrorized jelly.So we get again the famous master/slave dialectic, this time with technocratic,nuclear-tipped masters and "us" as fantasizing, dream-manipulated dupes slavingour lives away. One wonders why the masters had to threaten to blow up so muchif they did not have something "real" to worry about. Though the picture of classdefeat in the US developed by certain journals like Midnight Notes may bedepressing, it is nothing compared to the apparently "hopeful" Kovel. For if theworking class was at one time winning, it can turn the balance of forces again inits favor, so to speak; with Kovel the story is more questionable, for consider hisimplications. Capitalism's "instrumental rationality,"which is the expression of themathematizing technocratic essence of the system, has become completely detachedand is now in the hands of paranoid, megalomaniacal rulers longing for a prenatalexperience of omnipotent unity. The "people," on the other side, are mesmerizedby the shadows on the video screen cave wall. Our quite reasonable fear of being

reaction that the root of the "Cartesian-technocraticattitude" is found: a"grandioseself' surrounded by a necessary, but separated, nature which is mastered bymachines and numbers reaffirms the "lost omnipotence" of the foetus. The Bombis simply the most spectacular (and insane) product of this technocratic attitude,according to Kovel.But what of "us," the nontechnocrats, the working classes, the Blacks, thewomen of the world? What is the source of our passivity? Why do we let theFuture of Humanity be threatened? The essence of our passivity is "terror." AsKovel's aphorism puts it, "If our passivity be seen as a scar, nuclear terror is theoverseers' lash that put it there." He distinguishes sharply between terrorandfear;for after all fear is realistic and the first reaction to it is to destroy the object of ourfear if we have the capacity. Terror is something above and beyond fear. (Kovelmaintains the PLO, the Red Brigades and the IRA apply the same methods of"terror" as the superpowers do, by the way.) Terror requires the manipulation offantasies, what he calls the "rearranging of the structure of reality" in order to bean instrument of control. Nuclear weapons are not only instruments of fear (as allweapons are, according to Lao-tze) but they are an apparatus of psychologicalwarfare of the state on its own people. How does the state create these terrorizingfantasies in us? It is largely a play of shadow and light. Consider Kovel's list ofnuclear voodoo: (1) the continual modulation of the perception of the Bomb asboth all-destroying and as limited, (2) a continual pretense that the state can actuallyprotect the people against the Bomb, (3) but at the same time the state must keepa continual surveillance over society in order to persecute any nuclear "subversives",(4) there must be a dehumanized enemy, (5) the media must transmit all themessages of nuclear terror, (6) the cultural milieu must amplify the terror, e.g., avideo game like "Missile Command" validates the experience of nuclear war. Theuse of these techniques have turned the masses into quivering, terrorized jelly.So we get again the famous master/slave dialectic, this time with technocratic,nuclear-tipped masters and "us" as fantasizing, dream-manipulated dupes slavingour lives away. One wonders why the masters had to threaten to blow up so muchif they did not have something "real" to worry about. Though the picture of classdefeat in the US developed by certain journals like Midnight Notes may bedepressing, it is nothing compared to the apparently "hopeful" Kovel. For if theworking class was at one time winning, it can turn the balance of forces again inits favor, so to speak; with Kovel the story is more questionable, for consider hisimplications. Capitalism's "instrumental rationality,"which is the expression of themathematizing technocratic essence of the system, has become completely detachedand is now in the hands of paranoid, megalomaniacal rulers longing for a prenatalexperience of omnipotent unity. The "people," on the other side, are mesmerizedby the shadows on the video screen cave wall. Our quite reasonable fear of being

3070707


5/11

C. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentziskilled by bombs (whether nuclear or "conventional"), of being blacklisted fromgetting a wage because we openly resist, of being imprisoned for actively opposingthe system or "revealing nuclear secrets," of being smeared by the press if we evensay a few kind words about the opponents-all this is taken as inadequate to explainthe "passivity" according to Kovel. Moreover, the simple indifference to the wholeworld-historical drama of Nuclear Apocalypse experienced by many because therent's going up, the job is ending, the children are hungry and the electricity isabout to be turned off again is not even mentioned by Kovel. No. We must beterrorized, fantasy-ridden, irrationallyon our knees before lunatic scientists becauseof their continual restructuring of reality. Surely to get out of the cave of suchterror we need some philosopher-king or, if we have the cash, a psychotherapist.Kovel pleads too much.Consider the "casehistory" that Kovel gives to illustrate nuclear terrorization.It is that of a young woman, apparently brought up in "Volvo country" (i.e., middleclass suburbs), who goes into the Freeze campaign as her first "political involve-ment." She then plans to get involved with a civil disobedience (c.d.) action (which,from the details given, I surmise to be outside the gates of a Connecticut submarineyard launching the Trident nuclear sub). Kovel writes, "Somehow, despite all thepolitical sense the action had to her, despite the training she had received innonviolence o ensurehersafety,despite everything 'better' or 'higher' in her that calledout to make this seemingly logical step, she found herself becoming paralyzed." (p.56, our italics) She eventually drops out of the action and goes back to the Freezecampaign. Why? Could it be that since she was brought up in a Connecticut suburbshe knew that many of the cops around Groton, Conn., the site of the action, areknown K.K.K. members or supporters? Could it be that she surmised that theTrident is a high priority item in the US arsenal and that its launching will attractmany F.B.I. operatives who might investigate and later intimidate the protesters-making getting a job even harder for a young woman? Could it be, perhaps, thatthis young woman "despaired" of this type of action because it didn't appear thatc.d. will do anything to stop the Trident? No, says Kovel. It must be that she wasnuclear terrorized. What evidence does he give? A dream she has many days later,a dream many young people have had, of bombers coming over her town to dropthe Bomb on her. This dream is supposed to reveal the"terrorization"that somehowgoes above and beyond the "real" circumstances of political choice, because thedream was one she had when she was a child expressing the "extreme degree of fearthat had been instilled into her as a little girl." But what is cause and what is effecthere? Is the childhood fantasy the cause of her action (or nonaction) or are thecircumstances surrounding the decision evocative of the dream?For example, thereis real danger in demonstrating in front of a military base and perhaps the young

killed by bombs (whether nuclear or "conventional"), of being blacklisted fromgetting a wage because we openly resist, of being imprisoned for actively opposingthe system or "revealing nuclear secrets," of being smeared by the press if we evensay a few kind words about the opponents-all this is taken as inadequate to explainthe "passivity" according to Kovel. Moreover, the simple indifference to the wholeworld-historical drama of Nuclear Apocalypse experienced by many because therent's going up, the job is ending, the children are hungry and the electricity isabout to be turned off again is not even mentioned by Kovel. No. We must beterrorized, fantasy-ridden, irrationallyon our knees before lunatic scientists becauseof their continual restructuring of reality. Surely to get out of the cave of suchterror we need some philosopher-king or, if we have the cash, a psychotherapist.Kovel pleads too much.Consider the "casehistory" that Kovel gives to illustrate nuclear terrorization.It is that of a young woman, apparently brought up in "Volvo country" (i.e., middleclass suburbs), who goes into the Freeze campaign as her first "political involve-ment." She then plans to get involved with a civil disobedience (c.d.) action (which,from the details given, I surmise to be outside the gates of a Connecticut submarineyard launching the Trident nuclear sub). Kovel writes, "Somehow, despite all thepolitical sense the action had to her, despite the training she had received innonviolence o ensurehersafety,despite everything 'better' or 'higher' in her that calledout to make this seemingly logical step, she found herself becoming paralyzed." (p.56, our italics) She eventually drops out of the action and goes back to the Freezecampaign. Why? Could it be that since she was brought up in a Connecticut suburbshe knew that many of the cops around Groton, Conn., the site of the action, areknown K.K.K. members or supporters? Could it be that she surmised that theTrident is a high priority item in the US arsenal and that its launching will attractmany F.B.I. operatives who might investigate and later intimidate the protesters-making getting a job even harder for a young woman? Could it be, perhaps, thatthis young woman "despaired" of this type of action because it didn't appear thatc.d. will do anything to stop the Trident? No, says Kovel. It must be that she wasnuclear terrorized. What evidence does he give? A dream she has many days later,a dream many young people have had, of bombers coming over her town to dropthe Bomb on her. This dream is supposed to reveal the"terrorization"that somehowgoes above and beyond the "real" circumstances of political choice, because thedream was one she had when she was a child expressing the "extreme degree of fearthat had been instilled into her as a little girl." But what is cause and what is effecthere? Is the childhood fantasy the cause of her action (or nonaction) or are thecircumstances surrounding the decision evocative of the dream?For example, thereis real danger in demonstrating in front of a military base and perhaps the young

killed by bombs (whether nuclear or "conventional"), of being blacklisted fromgetting a wage because we openly resist, of being imprisoned for actively opposingthe system or "revealing nuclear secrets," of being smeared by the press if we evensay a few kind words about the opponents-all this is taken as inadequate to explainthe "passivity" according to Kovel. Moreover, the simple indifference to the wholeworld-historical drama of Nuclear Apocalypse experienced by many because therent's going up, the job is ending, the children are hungry and the electricity isabout to be turned off again is not even mentioned by Kovel. No. We must beterrorized, fantasy-ridden, irrationallyon our knees before lunatic scientists becauseof their continual restructuring of reality. Surely to get out of the cave of suchterror we need some philosopher-king or, if we have the cash, a psychotherapist.Kovel pleads too much.Consider the "casehistory" that Kovel gives to illustrate nuclear terrorization.It is that of a young woman, apparently brought up in "Volvo country" (i.e., middleclass suburbs), who goes into the Freeze campaign as her first "political involve-ment." She then plans to get involved with a civil disobedience (c.d.) action (which,from the details given, I surmise to be outside the gates of a Connecticut submarineyard launching the Trident nuclear sub). Kovel writes, "Somehow, despite all thepolitical sense the action had to her, despite the training she had received innonviolence o ensurehersafety,despite everything 'better' or 'higher' in her that calledout to make this seemingly logical step, she found herself becoming paralyzed." (p.56, our italics) She eventually drops out of the action and goes back to the Freezecampaign. Why? Could it be that since she was brought up in a Connecticut suburbshe knew that many of the cops around Groton, Conn., the site of the action, areknown K.K.K. members or supporters? Could it be that she surmised that theTrident is a high priority item in the US arsenal and that its launching will attractmany F.B.I. operatives who might investigate and later intimidate the protesters-making getting a job even harder for a young woman? Could it be, perhaps, thatthis young woman "despaired" of this type of action because it didn't appear thatc.d. will do anything to stop the Trident? No, says Kovel. It must be that she wasnuclear terrorized. What evidence does he give? A dream she has many days later,a dream many young people have had, of bombers coming over her town to dropthe Bomb on her. This dream is supposed to reveal the"terrorization"that somehowgoes above and beyond the "real" circumstances of political choice, because thedream was one she had when she was a child expressing the "extreme degree of fearthat had been instilled into her as a little girl." But what is cause and what is effecthere? Is the childhood fantasy the cause of her action (or nonaction) or are thecircumstances surrounding the decision evocative of the dream?For example, thereis real danger in demonstrating in front of a military base and perhaps the young

3080808


6/11

Powerand Terrorn BombPhilosophyowerand Terrorn BombPhilosophyowerand Terrorn BombPhilosophywoman was not so gullible as to believe what Kovel tells us, viz., nonviolencetraining would ensure her safety.Moreover, we might ask, given the situation as he describes it, why doesKovel have any "Hope" for the terrorized dupes or, indeed, for the mad technocrats?The hope lies in linking the immediate "spontaneous outrage of people against theBomb" with the mediated "spirit of liberation." This is the classic way that thephilosopher-kings from Plato through Lenin have seen their project. Kovelspecializes this logic for the antinuclear war movement. On the one side, there aremany in "fear and trembling" for their own lives, on the other, there is a "universalinterest," "a higher law," a "transcendent" patterned on "the great emancipatingsystems ... that is, Christianity and Socialism before they were corrupted byChurch and state." Those who are to link the "spontaneous outrage" and immediatefear with these "higher principles"areones that have the quality of "moral integrity"in the face of the Bomb. These people are animated by "hope," by a "faith" in aprefigurative "vision." Indeed, Kovel's hope lies in the "hopers,"in those who "seeaworld beyond the nation-state, beyond technocracy, beyond economic domination,beyond racism, beyond sexism; a utopian vision, not here and not looming, butnot to be put off either."Somehow these seers, these hopers, these faithful ones, these, yes, "shepherdsof Being" are to lead the terrorized dwellers of the cave into the sunshine ofpostnuclear reality.Kovel sees himself as a spokesperson not for the Freeze Campaign-whichhe criticizes as having "a lingering faith in bourgeois democracy" and being"vulnerable to technocratic manipulation"-but of the "direct action" sector of theantinuclear weapons movement. It is in those who engage in nonviolent civildisobedience (blockages, trespassing, etc.) that Kovel finds the seeds of hope for a"social transformation." Thus the familiar "fence jumper," who in a carefullyrehearsed ritual climbs over a fence of an airbase or a nuclear weapons depot thenjumps into the waiting arms of a military policeman who arrests him or her on thespot, becomes in this period what used to be called a "revolutionary subject." Butare these people and their action capable of initiating the kind of antistatetransformation whose result would be a "mode of production" characterized by allthe "good" and "decent" adjectives one can concatenate? (Kovel's list is almostdefinitive: "nonviolent, libertarian, antimilitaristic, anti-imperial, antitechnocratic,feminist, nonracist, decentralized, ecological . .")The best way to consider Kovel's perception is by looking at the presupposi-tions of "fence jumping" and other nonviolent c.d. actions. Well, even before youcan get involved in such actions you must first pass through a c.d. training course.Such a course (similar in an uncomfortable way to the rage for "est" or "human

woman was not so gullible as to believe what Kovel tells us, viz., nonviolencetraining would ensure her safety.Moreover, we might ask, given the situation as he describes it, why doesKovel have any "Hope" for the terrorized dupes or, indeed, for the mad technocrats?The hope lies in linking the immediate "spontaneous outrage of people against theBomb" with the mediated "spirit of liberation." This is the classic way that thephilosopher-kings from Plato through Lenin have seen their project. Kovelspecializes this logic for the antinuclear war movement. On the one side, there aremany in "fear and trembling" for their own lives, on the other, there is a "universalinterest," "a higher law," a "transcendent" patterned on "the great emancipatingsystems ... that is, Christianity and Socialism before they were corrupted byChurch and state." Those who are to link the "spontaneous outrage" and immediatefear with these "higher principles"areones that have the quality of "moral integrity"in the face of the Bomb. These people are animated by "hope," by a "faith" in aprefigurative "vision." Indeed, Kovel's hope lies in the "hopers,"in those who "seeaworld beyond the nation-state, beyond technocracy, beyond economic domination,beyond racism, beyond sexism; a utopian vision, not here and not looming, butnot to be put off either."Somehow these seers, these hopers, these faithful ones, these, yes, "shepherdsof Being" are to lead the terrorized dwellers of the cave into the sunshine ofpostnuclear reality.Kovel sees himself as a spokesperson not for the Freeze Campaign-whichhe criticizes as having "a lingering faith in bourgeois democracy" and being"vulnerable to technocratic manipulation"-but of the "direct action" sector of theantinuclear weapons movement. It is in those who engage in nonviolent civildisobedience (blockages, trespassing, etc.) that Kovel finds the seeds of hope for a"social transformation." Thus the familiar "fence jumper," who in a carefullyrehearsed ritual climbs over a fence of an airbase or a nuclear weapons depot thenjumps into the waiting arms of a military policeman who arrests him or her on thespot, becomes in this period what used to be called a "revolutionary subject." Butare these people and their action capable of initiating the kind of antistatetransformation whose result would be a "mode of production" characterized by allthe "good" and "decent" adjectives one can concatenate? (Kovel's list is almostdefinitive: "nonviolent, libertarian, antimilitaristic, anti-imperial, antitechnocratic,feminist, nonracist, decentralized, ecological . .")The best way to consider Kovel's perception is by looking at the presupposi-tions of "fence jumping" and other nonviolent c.d. actions. Well, even before youcan get involved in such actions you must first pass through a c.d. training course.Such a course (similar in an uncomfortable way to the rage for "est" or "human

woman was not so gullible as to believe what Kovel tells us, viz., nonviolencetraining would ensure her safety.Moreover, we might ask, given the situation as he describes it, why doesKovel have any "Hope" for the terrorized dupes or, indeed, for the mad technocrats?The hope lies in linking the immediate "spontaneous outrage of people against theBomb" with the mediated "spirit of liberation." This is the classic way that thephilosopher-kings from Plato through Lenin have seen their project. Kovelspecializes this logic for the antinuclear war movement. On the one side, there aremany in "fear and trembling" for their own lives, on the other, there is a "universalinterest," "a higher law," a "transcendent" patterned on "the great emancipatingsystems ... that is, Christianity and Socialism before they were corrupted byChurch and state." Those who are to link the "spontaneous outrage" and immediatefear with these "higher principles"areones that have the quality of "moral integrity"in the face of the Bomb. These people are animated by "hope," by a "faith" in aprefigurative "vision." Indeed, Kovel's hope lies in the "hopers,"in those who "seeaworld beyond the nation-state, beyond technocracy, beyond economic domination,beyond racism, beyond sexism; a utopian vision, not here and not looming, butnot to be put off either."Somehow these seers, these hopers, these faithful ones, these, yes, "shepherdsof Being" are to lead the terrorized dwellers of the cave into the sunshine ofpostnuclear reality.Kovel sees himself as a spokesperson not for the Freeze Campaign-whichhe criticizes as having "a lingering faith in bourgeois democracy" and being"vulnerable to technocratic manipulation"-but of the "direct action" sector of theantinuclear weapons movement. It is in those who engage in nonviolent civildisobedience (blockages, trespassing, etc.) that Kovel finds the seeds of hope for a"social transformation." Thus the familiar "fence jumper," who in a carefullyrehearsed ritual climbs over a fence of an airbase or a nuclear weapons depot thenjumps into the waiting arms of a military policeman who arrests him or her on thespot, becomes in this period what used to be called a "revolutionary subject." Butare these people and their action capable of initiating the kind of antistatetransformation whose result would be a "mode of production" characterized by allthe "good" and "decent" adjectives one can concatenate? (Kovel's list is almostdefinitive: "nonviolent, libertarian, antimilitaristic, anti-imperial, antitechnocratic,feminist, nonracist, decentralized, ecological . .")The best way to consider Kovel's perception is by looking at the presupposi-tions of "fence jumping" and other nonviolent c.d. actions. Well, even before youcan get involved in such actions you must first pass through a c.d. training course.Such a course (similar in an uncomfortable way to the rage for "est" or "human

3090909


7/11

C. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzispotential" training "sessions"in the 1970s) is the application of an almost Tayloristicintelligence to political activism. The instructors tell you the exact number of inchesyou must be when addressing a policeman-not too far to provoke a "distancingeffect" not too close to imply "hostility" or "threat"-they expand with enormousminutia on the proper ways of lying limp and, most importantly, they expoundon the Taylorism of the mind. I.e., how the average person must use the propermental procedures to control their aggressiveness and hostility in the face of thearrestor maltreatment of themselves and their friends. These mental techniques andthe physical behavior sequences that are to match them make the c.d. course atraining in voluntary self-repression and the control of "initiative." Everything inthe usual c.d. "action" must be preplanned and even delivered to the statebeforehand.

Sometimes the theorists in the nonviolent "directaction" movement like Kovelsee in these actions aprefigurationof a future society. If it is, the prefigured societyappears to be one that continually advises repression of the self, an enormousamount of discipline (both inner and outer) for a "higher law" that is so"transcendent" that you might aswell callit "God."There is a ratherholier-than-thou,churchy odor to the whole thing. Indeed, the control of the action is so precisethat you wonder if the category of action is applicable at all, in the same way thatthe ingesting of the holy wafer is hardly subsumable under the category of eating.For example, you can only "do" c.d. in well prescribed locales and times (e.g. theentrances of specific governmental institutions during the day). If you and yourfriends decide to block the movement of one of the thousands of trucks thatcommonly crisscross the highways loaded with nuclear-weapons carriersor materialfor nuclear bombs without going through the proper procedures, most probablythe actions would be called "violent" by our c.d. friends.The dubious character of Kovel's claims for the direct action movement canbe further seen by the attitude implicit in the c.d.er's encounter with the US state.First, the c.d. training is advertised as a way of making the process of interferingwith governmental activities and being arrested safe. But this implies that there isconfidence the state will play its part in the highly ritualizedpas de deux: this veryconfidence seems to give to the state the very legitimacy and sanity that these c.d.actions are supposed to strip the state of. After all, if the state can deal reasonably,nonviolently and leniently with those who would try to disrupt, even minimally,the most violent apparatus in its arsenal (nuclear weapons) then the state cannotbe the ogre (the mad, out of control machine) the movement claims it to be.Second, when it comes to movements in the Third World that have "taken upthe gun" like the El Salvadorean rebels or the Sandinistas, c.d. theorists like Koveldefend them in a way that further validates the US state. How can Kovel defendthe Sandinistas if violence invariably leads to violence-the axiom of these thinkers.Kovel gives his dispensation to Ortega in the following backhanded manner: "When

potential" training "sessions"in the 1970s) is the application of an almost Tayloristicintelligence to political activism. The instructors tell you the exact number of inchesyou must be when addressing a policeman-not too far to provoke a "distancingeffect" not too close to imply "hostility" or "threat"-they expand with enormousminutia on the proper ways of lying limp and, most importantly, they expoundon the Taylorism of the mind. I.e., how the average person must use the propermental procedures to control their aggressiveness and hostility in the face of thearrestor maltreatment of themselves and their friends. These mental techniques andthe physical behavior sequences that are to match them make the c.d. course atraining in voluntary self-repression and the control of "initiative." Everything inthe usual c.d. "action" must be preplanned and even delivered to the statebeforehand.


potential" training "sessions"in the 1970s) is the application of an almost Tayloristicintelligence to political activism. The instructors tell you the exact number of inchesyou must be when addressing a policeman-not too far to provoke a "distancingeffect" not too close to imply "hostility" or "threat"-they expand with enormousminutia on the proper ways of lying limp and, most importantly, they expoundon the Taylorism of the mind. I.e., how the average person must use the propermental procedures to control their aggressiveness and hostility in the face of thearrestor maltreatment of themselves and their friends. These mental techniques andthe physical behavior sequences that are to match them make the c.d. course atraining in voluntary self-repression and the control of "initiative." Everything inthe usual c.d. "action" must be preplanned and even delivered to the statebeforehand.


3101010


8/11

Powerand Terrorn BombPhilosophyowerand Terrorn BombPhilosophyowerand Terrorn BombPhilosophythe conditions of nonviolent development are absent, and a people is subjected tothe rule of murderous gangsters, then armed struggle is the only recourse of dignity;that is, it becomes the lesser violence and the assertion of the human powers ofself-determination." (p. 17) Thus the Sandinistas are justified in their armedstruggle because the unfortunate Nicaraguan people were ruled by "murderousgangsters" like Somoza who employ death squads and brook no opposition. Atfirst this seems reasonable, but to defend the actions of third world revolutionariesin this way immediately implies that Reagan and Co. arenot "murderous gangsters"who employ "death squads" and who will brook significant opposition. In otherwords, Kovel indirectly implies that Reagan and Co. are within the realm of"reasonability" and that he and his cohorts can be influenced by moral suasion in away that Somoza and Mobutu are not. Ronnie is not so bad after all. (Though, ofcourse, the Somozas and Mobutus of the world are simply servants and vassals ofthe Reagans and would be impossible without them.) Somehow the politics ofmoral integrity can work way up North of the Equator but once you descend tothe darker folk and hotter climes violence becomes necessaryand so avery imperfectstruggle must be waged. Kovel manages to redeem Reagan and condemn the Blackand Brown people to Hell simultaneously.

Finally, Kovel evokes the image of Gandhi and the highly vaunted nonviolentcampaign to rid India of British colonialism as the model of his movement and asthe intimation of its possibilities. First, as to Gandhi's practical "success,"we findthat many Indians are skeptical of the nonviolent movement's impact on the British.Indeed, Gandhi himself believed it was far from decisive in ending colonialism.Second, Gandhi's tactical procedure was invariably very divisive for he was alwaysanxious that any movement he was involved in was in the hands of "rational,""civilized" people. Thus in his South African adventures he was extra careful indissociating the cause of Indian rights from the struggle of the "uncivilized" Blacks.Third, we must realize that Gandhi's is an extremely "aristocratic"philosophy whosetheme is self-involvement. I.e., one is nonviolent because one refused to be drawninto any relationship with your purported oppressor who is, in effect, below you.You take yourself and your will as the final arbiter of your actions and not the willof the oppressor of, indeed, of any third party either. You refuse to work for them,and since they are your work, your refusal reveals their unsubstantiality. Gandhiproposes as his median tactic a truly personal general strike, i.e., total noncoopera-tion with command in every juncture of ordinary life. Most importantly, Gandhiargues that nonviolence is not a matter of prudence nor is it demonstrative orsymbolic. You do not choose a nonviolent struggle either because it supposedlyguarantees your safety (which, in any case, it cannot) nor because it will impressothers. You do it because you actually refuse to be controlled by others who falselyimagine a superiority over you.Gandhi was against the use of nonviolence as a matter of prudence; his

the conditions of nonviolent development are absent, and a people is subjected tothe rule of murderous gangsters, then armed struggle is the only recourse of dignity;that is, it becomes the lesser violence and the assertion of the human powers ofself-determination." (p. 17) Thus the Sandinistas are justified in their armedstruggle because the unfortunate Nicaraguan people were ruled by "murderousgangsters" like Somoza who employ death squads and brook no opposition. Atfirst this seems reasonable, but to defend the actions of third world revolutionariesin this way immediately implies that Reagan and Co. arenot "murderous gangsters"who employ "death squads" and who will brook significant opposition. In otherwords, Kovel indirectly implies that Reagan and Co. are within the realm of"reasonability" and that he and his cohorts can be influenced by moral suasion in away that Somoza and Mobutu are not. Ronnie is not so bad after all. (Though, ofcourse, the Somozas and Mobutus of the world are simply servants and vassals ofthe Reagans and would be impossible without them.) Somehow the politics ofmoral integrity can work way up North of the Equator but once you descend tothe darker folk and hotter climes violence becomes necessaryand so avery imperfectstruggle must be waged. Kovel manages to redeem Reagan and condemn the Blackand Brown people to Hell simultaneously.


the conditions of nonviolent development are absent, and a people is subjected tothe rule of murderous gangsters, then armed struggle is the only recourse of dignity;that is, it becomes the lesser violence and the assertion of the human powers ofself-determination." (p. 17) Thus the Sandinistas are justified in their armedstruggle because the unfortunate Nicaraguan people were ruled by "murderousgangsters" like Somoza who employ death squads and brook no opposition. Atfirst this seems reasonable, but to defend the actions of third world revolutionariesin this way immediately implies that Reagan and Co. arenot "murderous gangsters"who employ "death squads" and who will brook significant opposition. In otherwords, Kovel indirectly implies that Reagan and Co. are within the realm of"reasonability" and that he and his cohorts can be influenced by moral suasion in away that Somoza and Mobutu are not. Ronnie is not so bad after all. (Though, ofcourse, the Somozas and Mobutus of the world are simply servants and vassals ofthe Reagans and would be impossible without them.) Somehow the politics ofmoral integrity can work way up North of the Equator but once you descend tothe darker folk and hotter climes violence becomes necessaryand so avery imperfectstruggle must be waged. Kovel manages to redeem Reagan and condemn the Blackand Brown people to Hell simultaneously.


3111111


9/11

C. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzisnotion of nonviolence arises from a determined attempt to reject the controllingpowers outside which are the sources of fear and prudence. Further, and this iswhere he was most untrue to himself, Gandhi was not interested in symbolic action.He either sponsored total noncooperation to paralyzethe power machine or, in hislater period, he engaged in c.d. to put an end to specificoffensive policies of theBritish colonial power (e.g. the salt tax, the import of foreign cloth, the tax onland tenure, etc.). Nonviolent action, according to Gandhi, was to be effectiveactionand not a show. However, he frequently belied his own precepts and his "hungerartist" marathons usually degenerated into squalid psychodramas. (By the way, theBritish learned to use Gandhi to their advantage for after slaughtering and starvingmillions Gandhi allowed them to get out of India smelling like roses since theycould presumably say they left under "moral pressure" and hence were "moral"themselves.)But whatever Gandhi's failings were he sometimes tried to actually stop thesystem. This is not true of the typical antinuke c.d. action. It is not really meantto paralyze the state machine, rather it is an occasion for the demonstrators to showthe onlookers their "moral integrity." Kovel argues that those who demonstrate"moral integrity" will earn the respect and will be able to take on the leadership ofthe large mass of "politically centrist" people. "Even if (these politically centristpeople) are unwilling to draw a full range of conclusions from their insight, theywill respect and be drawn towards whatever conveys the sense of a more authenticconfrontation with the nuclear menace. Therefore, they will respond to and sharein a sense of moral integrity in the face of the bomb." (p. 162) Thus the rituals inthe summer breezes of climbing and jumping, of arrest and bail are really notactions at all, but expressions of the moral qualities of the participant, a rite ofpassage necessary to take on the respect and following of the masses. Whatever onethinks of this reduction of political action to moral dramatics, this is Gandhiism atits most puerile.Kovel, like the movement he speaks for, does not offer a politics (either"transformatory"or reformist, except for a set of nice adjectives) . . . rather he takesa moral posture, hoping that others will notice and imitate him in his apocalypticversion of "Simon Says." No real alternative is offered. A rather timid "NO" isspoken, for this movement does not have a will to something else beside the presentsituation sans nukes. Its energies seem to be invested in keeping the stance of totalalarm, like the self-flagellants of the medieval period (though the whips areprudently soft now) ... a hurried attempt to cleanse one's sense of responsibilitybefore The End. As a consequence, the c.d.ers like Kovel end up playing the roleof "foot soldiers of the Freeze" providing a little edge, a little physical threat to acampaign that is eminently "respectable"and "bourgeois." And they also diseducate

notion of nonviolence arises from a determined attempt to reject the controllingpowers outside which are the sources of fear and prudence. Further, and this iswhere he was most untrue to himself, Gandhi was not interested in symbolic action.He either sponsored total noncooperation to paralyzethe power machine or, in hislater period, he engaged in c.d. to put an end to specificoffensive policies of theBritish colonial power (e.g. the salt tax, the import of foreign cloth, the tax onland tenure, etc.). Nonviolent action, according to Gandhi, was to be effectiveactionand not a show. However, he frequently belied his own precepts and his "hungerartist" marathons usually degenerated into squalid psychodramas. (By the way, theBritish learned to use Gandhi to their advantage for after slaughtering and starvingmillions Gandhi allowed them to get out of India smelling like roses since theycould presumably say they left under "moral pressure" and hence were "moral"themselves.)But whatever Gandhi's failings were he sometimes tried to actually stop thesystem. This is not true of the typical antinuke c.d. action. It is not really meantto paralyze the state machine, rather it is an occasion for the demonstrators to showthe onlookers their "moral integrity." Kovel argues that those who demonstrate"moral integrity" will earn the respect and will be able to take on the leadership ofthe large mass of "politically centrist" people. "Even if (these politically centristpeople) are unwilling to draw a full range of conclusions from their insight, theywill respect and be drawn towards whatever conveys the sense of a more authenticconfrontation with the nuclear menace. Therefore, they will respond to and sharein a sense of moral integrity in the face of the bomb." (p. 162) Thus the rituals inthe summer breezes of climbing and jumping, of arrest and bail are really notactions at all, but expressions of the moral qualities of the participant, a rite ofpassage necessary to take on the respect and following of the masses. Whatever onethinks of this reduction of political action to moral dramatics, this is Gandhiism atits most puerile.Kovel, like the movement he speaks for, does not offer a politics (either"transformatory"or reformist, except for a set of nice adjectives) . . . rather he takesa moral posture, hoping that others will notice and imitate him in his apocalypticversion of "Simon Says." No real alternative is offered. A rather timid "NO" isspoken, for this movement does not have a will to something else beside the presentsituation sans nukes. Its energies seem to be invested in keeping the stance of totalalarm, like the self-flagellants of the medieval period (though the whips areprudently soft now) ... a hurried attempt to cleanse one's sense of responsibilitybefore The End. As a consequence, the c.d.ers like Kovel end up playing the roleof "foot soldiers of the Freeze" providing a little edge, a little physical threat to acampaign that is eminently "respectable"and "bourgeois." And they also diseducate

notion of nonviolence arises from a determined attempt to reject the controllingpowers outside which are the sources of fear and prudence. Further, and this iswhere he was most untrue to himself, Gandhi was not interested in symbolic action.He either sponsored total noncooperation to paralyzethe power machine or, in hislater period, he engaged in c.d. to put an end to specificoffensive policies of theBritish colonial power (e.g. the salt tax, the import of foreign cloth, the tax onland tenure, etc.). Nonviolent action, according to Gandhi, was to be effectiveactionand not a show. However, he frequently belied his own precepts and his "hungerartist" marathons usually degenerated into squalid psychodramas. (By the way, theBritish learned to use Gandhi to their advantage for after slaughtering and starvingmillions Gandhi allowed them to get out of India smelling like roses since theycould presumably say they left under "moral pressure" and hence were "moral"themselves.)But whatever Gandhi's failings were he sometimes tried to actually stop thesystem. This is not true of the typical antinuke c.d. action. It is not really meantto paralyze the state machine, rather it is an occasion for the demonstrators to showthe onlookers their "moral integrity." Kovel argues that those who demonstrate"moral integrity" will earn the respect and will be able to take on the leadership ofthe large mass of "politically centrist" people. "Even if (these politically centristpeople) are unwilling to draw a full range of conclusions from their insight, theywill respect and be drawn towards whatever conveys the sense of a more authenticconfrontation with the nuclear menace. Therefore, they will respond to and sharein a sense of moral integrity in the face of the bomb." (p. 162) Thus the rituals inthe summer breezes of climbing and jumping, of arrest and bail are really notactions at all, but expressions of the moral qualities of the participant, a rite ofpassage necessary to take on the respect and following of the masses. Whatever onethinks of this reduction of political action to moral dramatics, this is Gandhiism atits most puerile.Kovel, like the movement he speaks for, does not offer a politics (either"transformatory"or reformist, except for a set of nice adjectives) . . . rather he takesa moral posture, hoping that others will notice and imitate him in his apocalypticversion of "Simon Says." No real alternative is offered. A rather timid "NO" isspoken, for this movement does not have a will to something else beside the presentsituation sans nukes. Its energies seem to be invested in keeping the stance of totalalarm, like the self-flagellants of the medieval period (though the whips areprudently soft now) ... a hurried attempt to cleanse one's sense of responsibilitybefore The End. As a consequence, the c.d.ers like Kovel end up playing the roleof "foot soldiers of the Freeze" providing a little edge, a little physical threat to acampaign that is eminently "respectable"and "bourgeois." And they also diseducate

3121212


10/11


11/11

C. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzis. GeorgeCaffentzisas Newton. When you grasp for a typically capitalist "attitude"you clutch at straws,many, many straws.The political consequence of Kovel's type of analysis is the tactics of evasion.Posing technology as the problem instead of capitalism creates an easy way not toconfront the state. The Machine is guilty, we are guilty, not Weinberger, notRockefeller, not the IMF nor the Bank of America. All the concrete forces of UScapitalism, of which the military-industrial complex represents the highest expres-sion, appear to be irrelevant from Kovel's perspectives. All our problems emanatefrom our consciousness, from these attitudes. Inevitably such a politics degeneratesinto moral exhortation and quasi-religious ranting.One last remark: although Kovel never directly mentions him, the presenceof Heidegger can be felt behind much of Against the State of Nuclear Terror.Thisis not unusual, because there has been a remarkableattempt by parts of the left inthe 1980s to recuperate Heidegger under the guise of the humanist concern withsubjective fulfillment and the overcoming of technological domination. What anobnoxious and disgusting operation Defeat can lead to despair, but must it cometo this grovelling before the Nazi philosopher? Many a NY leftish intellectual whowould be horrified to touch a PLO leaflet quotes this philosopher of the deathcamps with slavish delight. History is a nightmare, but must its jokes be foreverso cruel? How many times must it be said the Heidegger's famous critique oftechnology is purely propaedeutic to the work of the Leaderwho Heidegger advisesnot to forget that the Will is prior to all the technological instruments ofdomination. Heidegger insists on the priority of the will to power over theconditions of technological efficiency. That is his humanism: a determined hand ismore important than whether you kill your victims with bullets, cyanide pellets,flames or nuclear bombs. With such an opposition, Reagan is no surprise.

as Newton. When you grasp for a typically capitalist "attitude"you clutch at straws,many, many straws.The political consequence of Kovel's type of analysis is the tactics of evasion.Posing technology as the problem instead of capitalism creates an easy way not toconfront the state. The Machine is guilty, we are guilty, not Weinberger, notRockefeller, not the IMF nor the Bank of America. All the concrete forces of UScapitalism, of which the military-industrial complex represents the highest expres-sion, appear to be irrelevant from Kovel's perspectives. All our problems emanatefrom our consciousness, from these attitudes. Inevitably such a politics degeneratesinto moral exhortation and quasi-religious ranting.One last remark: although Kovel never directly mentions him, the presenceof Heidegger can be felt behind much of Against the State of Nuclear Terror.Thisis not unusual, because there has been a remarkableattempt by parts of the left inthe 1980s to recuperate Heidegger under the guise of the humanist concern withsubjective fulfillment and the overcoming of technological domination. What anobnoxious and disgusting operation Defeat can lead to despair, but must it cometo this grovelling before the Nazi philosopher? Many a NY leftish intellectual whowould be horrified to touch a PLO leaflet quotes this philosopher of the deathcamps with slavish delight. History is a nightmare, but must its jokes be foreverso cruel? How many times must it be said the Heidegger's famous critique oftechnology is purely propaedeutic to the work of the Leaderwho Heidegger advisesnot to forget that the Will is prior to all the technological instruments ofdomination. Heidegger insists on the priority of the will to power over theconditions of technological efficiency. That is his humanism: a determined hand ismore important than whether you kill your victims with bullets, cyanide pellets,flames or nuclear bombs. With such an opposition, Reagan is no surprise.

as Newton. When you grasp for a typically capitalist "attitude"you clutch at straws,many, many straws.The political consequence of Kovel's type of analysis is the tactics of evasion.Posing technology as the problem instead of capitalism creates an easy way not toconfront the state. The Machine is guilty, we are guilty, not Weinberger, notRockefeller, not the IMF nor the Bank of America. All the concrete forces of UScapitalism, of which the military-industrial complex represents the highest expres-sion, appear to be irrelevant from Kovel's perspectives. All our problems emanatefrom our consciousness, from these attitudes. Inevitably such a politics degeneratesinto moral exhortation and quasi-religious ranting.One last remark: although Kovel never directly mentions him, the presenceof Heidegger can be felt behind much of Against the State of Nuclear Terror.Thisis not unusual, because there has been a remarkableattempt by parts of the left inthe 1980s to recuperate Heidegger under the guise of the humanist concern withsubjective fulfillment and the overcoming of technological domination. What anobnoxious and disgusting operation Defeat can lead to despair, but must it cometo this grovelling before the Nazi philosopher? Many a NY leftish intellectual whowould be horrified to touch a PLO leaflet quotes this philosopher of the deathcamps with slavish delight. History is a nightmare, but must its jokes be foreverso cruel? How many times must it be said the Heidegger's famous critique oftechnology is purely propaedeutic to the work of the Leaderwho Heidegger advisesnot to forget that the Will is prior to all the technological instruments ofdomination. Heidegger insists on the priority of the will to power over theconditions of technological efficiency. That is his humanism: a determined hand ismore important than whether you kill your victims with bullets, cyanide pellets,flames or nuclear bombs. With such an opposition, Reagan is no surprise.

3141414

caffentzis - review - power and terror in bomb philosophy - a review of joel kovel's against the...

Documents