Berlusconism is just the start & communication is its weapon of choice

“Communicative technologies are not instruments of exile from the world, nor reversible deviations from reality. Rather, they are mechanism contributing to the construction of the world that we experience as a society, in our way of being together. If in Berlusconism “being together”, living in the public sphere, means to be within the world of publicity – and this is one of its most hateful aspects – then what we need is another way of being together. What we need is another language, able to produce the public sphere as political community.”
Marazzi, Capital & Affects p136

Marazzi is clear that Berlusconism is “an experiment in post-Fordist goverance” and not some aberration from or extremity of the existing regimes. This ‘experiment’ has grasped the tool/weapon duality of language (what, after all, is more projective than language [cf. Deleuze & Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus]) on a most basic level & mobilized new strategies of dominance on this basis before ‘we’ even had time to realize what had happened. ‘We’ must urgently develop strategies for the deployment of language as weapon before our use of this weapon is stripped from us (the voice stealing gun of the weaponised neurology is ALREADY HERE). ——————

Advertisements

Topoi of Resistance

“The struggle is situated within language, in the ability to produce other version of the same fundamental desire of belonging to community. The real problem is how to create other common places able to fill the gap between the desire for community and its internal, political inconsistencies.”
Marazzi, Capital and Affects, p124

The role of topoi (the common places of language) in the means of production of post-Fordist society is of urgent concern. The complicity of communication in production that post-Fordism has achieved (initiated) is new but communication did once dominate the means of consumption and by turning to the culture of that time (i.e. of antiquity; of the time marked by what Barthes called ‘the old rhetoric’ rather than the new rhetoric of mythology) we can find means of thinking about those very topoi and their relation to the skein of power & domination in the hope of turning them towards an understanding of our own situation. The study of the masters of that ‘old rhetoric’ should equip us to comprehend and begin the task of defeating the new masters. It is time to realize that Libanius must be ‘exploded out of his time’ and into ours before it is to late. ——————

Government ‘in the middle’ of the image.

In his discussion of ‘the middle class’ Marazzi directs us to their problematic relationship to hegemony & the spectacle:
“Indeed, it is on this class that rests the very possibility of governing a society. It is obvious that the “general interest” refers to the average of the particular interests crisscrossing a society, but representing such a middle class today is much less obvious. To represent means to forcefully present, to choose not only a lens but an image: this, of course, implies that the middle class is socially visible”
Marazzi, Capital and Affects, p115
This imagistic quality of the ‘possibility of governing’ was always a concern of Marxism before Debord pinned it to the floor in his discussion of The Spectacle. Benjamin & Gramsci must also be drawn into this iconoclasm. ——————

Becker/Althusser/Barthes

“In short, the theory of art which makes it possible and worthwhile to create reputations is not timeless; it arises in societies which subscribe to more general theories emphasizing the individual over the collective, and under particular social conditions.”
Becker, Art Worlds, p354

Becker carefully shows that the mythology of the artist as individual is an effect/function of industrial capitalism before making the statement above. The interconnexion with Barthes (in The Death of the Author & S/Z) and Althusser (in the ideology essay) is quite clear. ——————