The Death of Politics?

After last week’s suicide bombings (the first in Britain, and possibly the first in Western Europe, if we assume a ‘modern’ context), amidst all the talk of Muslim ‘communities’, as artificially constructed as they are, one particular argument intrigued me: That there had been ‘no legitimate political outlet’ for Muslim opposition to the war in Iraq, or for British foreign policy more generally. That voting, marches, campaigning and other forms of protest had not been enough to adequately express the anger many felt at Britain’s involvements overseas.

It’s certainly the case that the anti-war opposition to Iraq made no difference. Sure, there was talk of a slight delay to the bombings, but in terms of actually altering the fact that it happened, that we were going into Iraq, nada. Those who protested nevertheless gave themselves a pat on the back, ‘I marched…and I voted! See how politically responsible I am!’. The protests themselves, although supported and attended by members of the Muslim Association of Britain, were in large part about revelling in a certain form of peculiarly British sentimentalism (‘make tea, not war’). The problems with this ‘emotional pacifism’ on the part of some of the protestors is its lack of staying power, its lack of consistency – as if a single march that failed to achieve any of its aims sufficed for one lifetime.

The anti-war protests were, to my mind, not nearly serious enough. Given the gravity and reality of what we opposed, the murder of thousands, the insanity of war, we needed less banners, streamers and songs than sombre militancy. Why did we not march in silence, soberly dressed, through the capital? Wouldn’t the stillness of a million people walking together impose more on the collective consciousness than the gaudy hedonism of a hundred groups engaging in post-hippy dancing-dissent? The banal politics of expression surely shares more with Coke’s imperative to ‘enjoy!’ than it does with the barely-constrained anger that motivates the protests in the first place.

Of course, there’s no point in claiming that an altered form of protest would have made a difference. Yes, a million people could have surely stormed the Houses of Parliament, practiced various forms of civil disobedience above and beyond dancing, and so on. But we didn’t. We behaved impeccably.

We assume too much and speak too simplistically if we equate the seeming lack of effective protest with the suicide bombings, as if this was the only ‘reasonable’ option when all other avenues are closed. The question of ‘whether one could imagine being a suicide bomber’, raised with surprising frequency in personal conversations over the past few years, and the voiced concomitant impossibility of doing so (‘I could never envisage doing such a thing!’), tends to occlude the surrealism that such a decision must engender in those that do. History tells us that millions have knowingly, if not always willingly, gone to their deaths in the name of a ‘higher cause’ – the Crusades, fighting fascists in Spain, the Yugoslav Partisans, Iranian Basij in the Iran-Iraq war, Tamil Tigers, &c.

We know by now that the bombers were as ordinary as they come, neither fanatics, nor impoverished, nor previously known to the intelligence services. They were, in the parlance, ‘clean-skins’, at least as far as any terrorist links were concerned. Is what they did a grotesque one-off, a strange combination of a youthful desire for immortality and unique ideological pressure from sources as yet uncovered? If any of the ‘legitimate’ or illegitimate, yet bloodless, channels for putting political pressure on those who decide had worked, would we now be confronting the endless, weary fear of the everyday in quite the same way?   

Comments

[YH]

Been thinking about this myself this week in the light of the anti-G8 protests. Most of the demos were extremely good natured and even fun (the inventive input of the clown army being a key factor) with the result that the media had to tear up their script - the public were actually coming round to the protesters' side. It was only when a group of football casuals turned up on Monday evening in Edinburgh looking for a fight that the Liverpudlian and Mancunian police who had been bussed up north finally had the provocation to bash a few heads in.

The problem is that it is all too easy for the media to stigmatise anti-capitalist protesters as 'anarchists' (=violent psychopaths with no respect for our streets) when in fact there were many ordinary people on these demos and many sympathetic bystanders (though unfortunately many of them were allowed by police into the corral of 'anarchists' and kept there for hours).

Non-violence and inventive, fun protests at the present juncture seems the most effective way of stymying the police and media's attempts to discredit dissent, especially during a 'war on terror' which seems designed to return us to Weber's definition of the State as having the 'monopoly on the legitimate use of violence'.

That said it's hard to clown about when what you're protesting at is the starving in Africa or the 'collatoral damage' in Iraq. Thus I think I agree with you, IT.

And the all-too symbolic rattling of the Gleneagles fence was a frustratingly inadequate response to the show of power that was going on on the other side.

Last week was extremely depressing in political terms, and Thursday's events and the right-wing's response to it has only compounded this.

[Matt]

I wonder if the Billionaires for Bush and the Yes! Men might constitute something of an exception, to the utter purposelessness of this Enjoy!™ sort of modern protest (protest that almost seems to revel in its political inefficacy, no? Sharing charicteristics of the same cynical jubilation as that of the Free Marketeers?)

http://www.nplusonemag.com/convention_2.html

{"(Right wing kitsch will always beat left wing kitsch, since right wing kitsch elevates reality to some mythic dream while left wing kitsch offers only the consolations of victimhood and rage.)"}

There were some somber moments, to be sure, such as the coffin parade in NY, but nothing on the scale you suggest would be appropriate. About which I truly could not agree more.

(That's a very suggestive title, by the way.)

[Michael]

One of the first known bombers was mentioned on the news yesterday (maybe Tues). Anyway, this guy went to Pakistan and other places around there and spent time with kids in nurseries...he was English...and I thought, you know what? I can understand why this guy did this. He grew up in the priviledged West and now he's gone and seen what could've been for himself if he wasn't so lucky. Not that I'm saying it's right...but I find it easy to see how he came to the conclusion he did.

I've only seen this guy mentioned once...since the media found the "school assistant" guy today, they've fucking pounced on that one because of the "won't somebody think of our children factor". It's a shame really...because what we need is understanding, not more scaremongering.

[Jodi]

I've done some a couple of billionaires actions. The dilemma: the presumptive support for Bush et al can make it difficult for some to detect the irony and understand the critique. So, when the billionaires, seeking to coopt and discredit a right wing protest of a showing of Michael Moore's film, appeared here in a my upstate NY town, even the college students thought that the 'more blood for oil' signs and 'Cheney is innocent' were serious.

Even at the protest of Bush's first inaugural there were times when the message didn't get across: Jerry Falwell (horrid moral majority fundamentalist preacher) happily posed for a photo with a couple of us, presumably because we looked like Republicans and he agreed with our sign 'save our gated communities.'

But, IT, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the equation of 'no political outlet'=suicide bombings. That seems to have been the case in Palestine, at least to a certain extent.

[Adam Kotsko]

I have long thought that the role of "the people" in a democratic polity is to shut the fucking country down if the government insists on doing something like going to war at random with Iraq. And I further think that the way to tell that you're no longer really living in a democratic polity is that there is no chance of that ever happening no matter what (viz., the United States).

As for protests, I don't know that it's a matter of technique so much as scale.

[et alia]

Agreeing with Adam. Protest for peace? No--GENERAL STRIKE.

No business as usual, and NOT AS A SOME FUCKING METAPHOR EITHER.

I shoulda happened. It didn't.

[s0metim3s]

Interesting remarks IT. The so-called antiwar protests were not antiwar protests. That much is clear. I don't know about the US or UK, but here in AU, they were a moment in electoral enclosure, as different groups pitched themselves to 'the masses', who were indeed amassed for the purposes of such, but nothing else.

No one actually asked the question as to what might stop or interfere with the conduct of war. The real question that was asked was how to amass.

[YH]

et alia, in an ideal world, yes, general strike. But I also think you have to make the best of what we've got here and now, and right now a general strike is not on the cards. In the UK at least this is due to Blair having retained Thatcher's legislation which made most of the unions pretty toothless (the Union of Communication Workers being a rare exception - it must be something about postmen...). There's also the issue that most of the jobs Blair has created are 'precarious labour' (non-unionised, very-short-term contracts, etc.) where going on strike leaves you no protection against dismissal. Admittedly there were some welcome 'point of production' actions in the run up to the war (stopping fuel and armaments trains for example) but these were sadly sporadic. So yes I agree in principle, but..

[Jodi]

organized tech/IT/web, esp from ISP's and minions at AOL TimeWarner could force a shut down as part of a general strike. It's feasible, but requires political will.

[et alia]

YH: yeah, I know. Just saying. Question: in the UK, was there ever talk of work-stoppage actions before the war? The silence on this side of the pond was deafening, but I figure that's because labor here's even weaker (and has likely has more feckless leadership.)

[YH]

Et al, There were, it was one campaign of the more radical wing of the Stop the War Coalition, and was backed by some of the small radical parties (SWP, SSP, etc.). The day(s) that were planned for work-stoppages did have some (very limited I think) effect. But these things don't get much coverage unless you read Indymedia or Counter Information.

[rogergathman]

IT, good points. I think the antiwar movement in 2002 and 2003 shows that the demonstration, as a political vehicle, is dead unless there is some other power coordinate with it. There isn’t any left power left that hasn’t been absorbed by the ever-vampiric party structure.

Myself, I don’t think this is a matter of theatricality – whether a farce or a funeral march, I don’t think the demonstrations were going to effect the undertakers who had planned this war. And I really think that the substitution of the media for a real constituency has finally bit the bullet, or exposed the emperor’s new clothes, or some other cliché. It turns out that the media can ignore what it wants to and pay no price. Or at least so it thinks – I do think the major media in the U.S. on the East Coast, by the absurd arrogance with which they treat their core readership, which is liberal, is going to pay the price of less and less readership. But the media has the Detroit automaker attitude about business, so they don’t know that.

The other point, about the general strike, is more important. At my little site I rattle on, tediously, about counter-recruitment. But it is still the only strike going. It does make me a little mad to see supposed anti-war types trying to jokingly recruit young Republicans and war hawks into the army. Would unions have jokingly tried to recruit pinkerton men to man the assembly lines in the 30s? They had more cigar chomping sense. The capitalists can add – Badiou is right about that. The more soldiers, the more soldiers to play with. Is this so hard to realize?

I believe that the chickenhawks, on the contrary, have provided a wonderful slogan for the counter-recruitment campaign: let somebody else’s children fight this war. We can win universal peace, or at least withdrawal from the middle east (and make poor Kant spin in his grave) by making that a universal law. Our war leaders have actually shown us the way – Bush and Cheney both had “other priorities’ in the Vietnam war. So they didn’t go, and they prospered. By avoiding wounds and death, and by remaining here while others went, they got a head start on success. This is a story that resonates in our ownership society, no? Success is no longer statistical, it is moral Surely eighteen year olds here have been so filled with that message that it is second nature by now: there is nothing better than success. Everything depends on it. Get to work early, get home late. Party with your boss! Laugh at his jokes, they are truly funny! These kinds of things can be done better when you are not overseas. Businesses so dislike an employee that comes back and limps around, or hallucinates the bloody stumps of napalmed Iraqis during office hours.

So using our leaders as examples, I think counter recruitment can make the case that the patriotic thing is not to enlist. Besides which, our leaders show that the individual should make his own decision about the war, based entirely on what serves his self interest, and that such a decision is highly patriotic.

Ah, I seem to be edging into sarcasm in the end there. Sarcasm is a tool of the impotent, which is perhaps why I am inclined to it. But the general tactic stands. Here’s a counter-recruitment link: http://www.youthandthemilitary.org/orgs.htm.

Sorry if I’ve just been talking about the U.S. But where the American Id goes, the British super-ego will follow, justifying it all in plummy Blairish tones.

[Dr. Eric Wind]

From the remainder of a recent interview whose beginning is posted here: http://www.nakedpunch.com/issues/04/negri.html (please consider getting a subscription)

AN: "I have to admit that what happened after Seattle was extremely important and was probably something to be expected. Effectively, already the struggles in France in 1995 and 1996 bore enormous importance and revealed the ability to reconstitute a tissue of battle that seemed lost after the defeat of teh 1970s and 1980s. This movement then immediately developed on an internationalist basis. Further, this was indeed a movement with a great potential to develop in a pluralist way, with plenty of heads and ideas that however converged, determining a *common* in their stirring, with an ability to play against each other the elements of direct action and pacifism, with an open articulation between themselves. And, above all, with a new generational subject, with the birth of a new mass intellectual class that positioned itself in the middle of the struggles. This is what has truly awakened enthusiasm. And I believe that a concept of the multitude, which used to be a purely philosophical concept of Spinozian origin, has attempted to recognize itself in these movements because of their nature and above all, because of the structure they display beneath. I am thinking here of information technology and the manifestation of movement on the web."

JM: "Like for example Indymedia, an ultimately social network built upon computer technology."

AN: "Yes, these are all elements that characterise the social and bio-political composition of these movements as well as their vital dimension, delineating their opposition to exploitation and, at the same time, their liberating and emancipating expressions."

JM: "And hence, how should one interpret the crisis or even the demise of the Seattle movement?"

AN: "I have followed these events with great interest and I believe that the movement is currently in a major crisis. Effectively, the heightening of the dialogue, or better, of the struggle, through a re-definition of politics in terms of war, has obviously weakened the movement. *At times I can't help but believe that Bush's war-mongering conversion following 9/11 is not completely detached from the anxiety stemming from the constitution of a global movement of protest.* Hence nowadays, the situation is rather difficult although it is cyclical. What is important, according to me, is that when the movements will resume, sooner than we think, since this is part of the innate physiology of capitalist conflict, they will necessarily have the same features of teh Seattle cycle. This implies that the Seattle cycle is *irreversible in its characteristics*. From now on, social movement will not display the features of the socialist movements of the 19th century, but rather those of the *alter-mondialist* movements as we saw them at the end of the 20th century."

JM: "In the Italian context, in terms of the production of knowledge, the concept of *uninomadismo* is very interesting. How can we better define this concept, the itinerating production of knowledge that in Italy takes place outside the universities themselves, though involving students, academics and intellectuals?"

AN: "Italy enjoys a particularly privileged tradition. We had this workshop of struggles that coincided with the decade that followed 1968, up until 1977. They were an extraordinary ten years from the point of view of intellectual growth. Italy is nevertheless the country that has suffered the strongest and heaviest repression and practically the exclusion of a number of generations from the political game. However, certain experiences, as we discussed before, when stifled they tend to re-emerge at some stage. Hence, I believe that there has been a strong continuity between the 1970s and the Italian revival of the movement in the shape of anti-globalisation. As a result, this new platform benefited from an existing and consistent cultural heritage that was philosophical, political and of great sensitiveness. I remind you that when we were in prison, there was such a high level of expression that we ended up talking about the *University of Rebibbia*."
{both laugh}

AN: "Yes, many comrades, once out, went on to become university professors. I believe Italy offers this enormous advantage, that of being able to consolidate a critical mass and these itinerary universities are an attempt to build a bridge between the young and the old, but on the other hand, they are also a reciprocal mechanism of formation."

JM: "I am now asking you to analyse the 'contemporaneity' of capitalism. Can one maintain that the multi-national variation is an 'impure' phase of the capital? Or are we, as a matter of fact, living through a rather 'pure' phase of capitalism, whereby its mechanisms and products--just like the concept of democracy itself--can easily be deconstructed?"

AN: "I cannot envision any circumstance under which capitalism can be pure {laughs}. If anything, capitalism is nowadays totally developed. We are living in a phase of real subsumption of society in the dynamics of capital, there no longer are impure elements outside of capitalist production. For example, handicraft, farming activities or other forms of labour such as home labour and the general services have all been subsumed by the power of capital, tehy have all entered the circuits of valorisation of capital. In the past, when one referred to capitalism in terms of its relationship with society, one talked about processes of formal subsumption because of the permanence of old forms of production within capitalist development. These days capitalist development has consolidated everything. Hence we can no longer think of agricultural labour, unless we are referring to the peasant bard!" {both laugh}

AN: "Mark distinguishes between actual and formal subsumption. Hence, if one wants to think of capitalism as pure--stressing here that the word, 'pure' seems to me highly inadequate--we can say that we find ourselves facing the last phase of capitalism. When human labor is absorbed into capital, it undergoes major changes, Marx suggested in abstract terms. In reality, it merely changes in terms of the community of labour. the paradoxes are here so extremem teat even the hightest forms of capitalism produce co-partnerships of the social layers. Simply think of the privatisation of the pension schemes. Marx talked about *communism of capital*. There are ernormous institutions--the worker's share-holding, the pension funds, hospitals that become productive enterprises--a whole series of huge phenomena that the capital subsumes. Finding a way a strategy able to tackle these problems is the main concern of the multitude."

JM: "Surely. Let's now more on to the second part of the interview focused on the new Europe which is coming together. Jeremy Rifkin has recently proposed a European alternative to the American dream. To what extent is this vision believable?"

AN: "As usaul, Rifkin's works are extremely challenging and amateurish, at the same time. There is no doubt, however, that during this *interregnum*, during this struggle of power, we find ourselves in a world that is inclined towards unification as in that period in England during the struggles between the King and the rising bourgeouisie or the aristocracies; then, one could already talk then about a unified world, which namely was Englandd. At the present times, within this unified world, there is a mjor drive towards large continental unities--China, India, with South Africa struggling to extend its hegemony to unify the rest of Austral Africa. Latin America benefits from very high levels of internal unification with a marked anti-American sentiment. And then we have, of course, this European thought, hugely important since it creates an utterly distinctive public space, which stems from a civilization marked by a deep self-criticism that developed in Europe as a result of the war, on the one side, and the colonial experience on the other. I do not believe that in Europe there are great ideals at stake apart from the need to create a distinctive and vital public space. I am not sure whether this could function as an alternative to the United States. In spite of everything though, I remain hopeful in the American people, that much literature describes as a bunch of clerical lunatics."

JM: "Anti-Americanism is a widespread attitude."

AN: "Yes. One must say that Terry Shiavo's story is quite frightening from this point of view. That country is no longer characterized by the features of Tocquevillian morality. Neitehr with those of the American Constitution, which was essentially deranged over time. Beyond these ideologies, though, to talk about a cultural alternative to the United States. At best, we can propose a reversed interpretation of the neo-conservative propoganda, with Europe as Benus opposed to America as Mars. A strong America against a decadent and effeminate Europe."

JM: "The static, old Europe of Donald Rumsfeld."

AN: "Right, one can at most turn round this series of images. I believe, though, that we are treading mainly on propogandistic rather than scientific ground. I also believe, however, that the European public space holds a huge force of attraction. This became very clear during the process of European inclusion of a number of ex-Soviet countries, where within six months to a year, and although it had been an American scheme to weaken European structures, we instead realised how these countries joined Europe with immense happiness, almost immediately pulling out their troops from Iraq. It remains difficult to assess where this huge attraction is ultimately directed, it will however have to be confirmed by the French referendum over Europe, because of an anti-European majority that is taking shape."

JM: "Let's keep talking about Europe in terms of its own, however fluctuating, social and political identity. At the European Social Forum in London last October, one of the items on the agenda was namely how the European vision would be limited, in some of its components, by *Fortress Europe* project. Besides, as you pointed out, the geo-political analysis of relationsbetween continental blocks is slowly stepping back into the limelight, having to come to terms with a very ambiguous multi-polarism: recently, some European countries, bizarrely irritating the United States, decided to lift the embargo on the exports of weapons to China. Hence, how do you frame within your antagonistic vision the sometimes genuine interest of many for the European idea, for a 'different' European constitution, for a 'different' European citizenship, for a new governance and a new federalism?"

AN: "I believe that this constitution is an entirely neo-liberal one. When you actaully go off and read it, you will find that the first two parts are extremely ambiguous, as you do in all constitutions: they make a statement and then they basically contradict themselves. Marx already said that constitutions generally base themselves on high principles and then they eventually deny them. you then find a third part which is absolutely indecent, since it prescribes neo-liberalist principles that entail the kind of centralisation of neo-liberal politics over Europe. Having saidd this, I believe that there are a series of strategic reasons, as we discussed before, that are being shaped in an extremely agitated context. We are witnessing a strategic plan, a broad game between continental powers. New monarchies and elites stifle the growth of the multitude but also simulaneously show a clear antagonism between each other. A situation whereby the desire to be at the cenre of the system force the main elites, Chirac as well as Bush and the multinationals, in internecine struggles. Therefore, we have to kick-start the social movements of Europe into play in order to stop Schengan and the current European designs. In relation to this, the European Social Forum did not develop the Duropean issue in a suitable manner. Unfortunately, the reunion has shown a number of limitations, have been monopolised as it was by the old radical left, and then by a series of small parties that have highlighted old resentments and at immobility that does not help the quality of the debate or the movement as a whole. However, a political European space has to offer room for effective political action. There are a series of important possibilities to develop--the idea of *guaranteed income, the citizenship income, and the rights of women*. Therefore, I remain substantially optimistic with regards to European perspectives although we have to develop an effective strategy to oppose the designs of the aforementioned elites."

JM: "Right. One last and unavoidable question. You were in 1960s Italy one of the founders of teh *operaismo* school, of what some have referred to as the school of class composition, whose much-valued theoretical and analytic contributions to knoweldge and critical culture are acknowledged world wide. You have also been directly involved in political activities bearing, as a result, heavy and sometimes ujustifiable consequences, from censorship to improsonment in Italy. This is what I am trying to ask you: is there a continuity between your commitment of forty years ago and what you are doing today? What is Communism today? Is it an uncompleted project or an exhausted concept?"

AN: "There is no doubt that this continuity exists, we talked about it earlier on while referring to the continuity shown by the movements in Italy. This occurred on the basis of an accumulation of knowledge, experiences and formation of cultural elites that are noticeable in the universities and are entwined with new forms of militancy. This is a theoretical continuity, which means that the *categories of class composition* have gradually been altered over time, from exclusively fitting within the history of the working class movement, and then managing, through a wide-reaching theoretical work, to embrace the current global phenomena.

Nevertheless, there were some evident discontinuities in the organisational discourse. There is no doubt that, once born, the *operaista* school was deeply bound to the communist tradition, the Leninist one in particular. It is clear that the new analysis of the social composition of labour and the classes--the concept of the multitude itself stems from the concept of class even though it has been radically modified--highlight such alterations over time that deep discontinuities emerge when one considers the organisational processes. Today, for example, it would be unconceivable for any kind of avant-garde, or representative elite, to go beyond the capacity of the movement to express itself. The immanence of the organisational process in the development of the movement was the strongest element of discontinuity, if you like, even in regards to the old conception of the autonomy of the movement. Already back then we definitely had nothing to do with *real* Communism. Our oppposition to Stalinism began in a radical and heavy fashion as early as 1956, following the Hungarian crisis. Indeed, we have been involved in the whole post-1956 development of political thought, escaping the heavily isolated and censored Italian prvince with an exceptional pragmatic capacity. Hence it was the practice that renovated the theory. You ask me about Communism. I believe we are closer to Communism today than we were then {laughs}. Having said that, the socialist ideology, which applied forms of *communtarism* to an idea of capitalist development, was a rather oppressive culture. What really happened in the Soviet Union was a kind of Communism that hid the skeleton, the corpse of capitalism in the cupboard. China is the wholly accomplished expression of the capitalist continuity of a certain idea of socialism that displays a series of evident contraditions. Therefore it does not make sense to talk about Communism in such an instance. On the other hand, it is more than ever appropriate to talk about Communism as the continuity of the struggles against exploitation, *not simply by the classes, but now of society as a wholee*. From this point of view I maintain that we can call ourselves communists. Now, I wouldn't fall off my chair if we changed the name." {both laugh}

Please do subscribe to Naked Punch dear reader for the final paragraph of this interview and much, much more.

[Matt]

There seems to be a sort of indirect reply to some of these questions, if anyone is interested, in Marco Roth's second commentary from Rome here:

http://www.nplusonemag.com/romediary2.html

"Everyone is bored, so everyone puts on a mask.

The carnival is supposed to be a mini-revolution in everyday life: paupers become kings and kings become paupers, the high is made low, the straight crooked. It’s what we’d now call “subversive,” but in a controlled way that is not often appreciated by lovers of the “carnivalesque.” This licensed letting-off of steam isn’t subversive as much as it is the subversion of subversion. The protesters are vamping for the cameras, even for their own. Everyone seems to have a mini-video recorder or some kind of phone. They are showing off their activism, but the activism is part of a larger theater, the theater of freedom. Western democracies need to tolerate these fundamentally harmless and useless forms of dissent, and they’d be stupid not to. The members and organizers of Citizens for Peace and Justice and MoveOn have allowed themselves to become the fools of the Bush administration. They tote their “Worst President Ever” signs, their Alfred E. Neuman caricatures; they read out their letters and follow it up with a top-ten list of “Bushisms,” Letterman-style. But this is no different from the role the carnival clown plays in imitating the king or telling cuckold jokes and just about as “political.” Is it an accident that the freedoms we claim as Americans seem to resemble the indulgences permitted to feudal subjects?

When your government fights an enemy they won’t recognize as a political actor and won’t negotiate with, and when the citizens protest against the very existence of an elected president without emphasizing the means and legitimacy of his election or demanding reform of the unreliable process by which he was chosen, then the only possible result is an endlessly negative conflict; a stasis, in the root sense of the word, but also in the modern sense, a situation in which no real action is possible. Non-violent protest only works when it aims to expose the violence of the state against its citizens. That’s why burning draft cards mattered, but the volunteer military put a stop to that. So we are left only with expressionism, and expressionism isn’t good politics or good aesthetics, and, like a good pluralist, the American ambassador allows the protests to happen and has dinner on someone’s yacht. Our soldiers continue to be blown up by roadside bombs, peaceful Iraqis continue to die in huge numbers, protesters continue to turn out, but nothing seems to happen."