Join the new world

This is the third (and last) in a short series of excerpts from "PQ's Philosophical and Economic Manuscripts from The Second Millenium of the New World"... Enjoy!

Fair warning: wall of text follows... This is the conclusion of a two-part series on "Nationalism and Universalism in the New World". This part deals with Universalism and the crisis of e-socialism.





NATIONALISM and UNIVERSALISM IN THE NEW WORLD



UNIVERSALISM


"When I see my native land,
It suggests a den of vice.
Thinking thus, my heart is sad."

-- Milarepa


The defeat of the Marxist emancipatory project in the RL has seen, in its wake, a rise in the West of identity politics and post-modern ideologies of difference.

Elsewhere in the real world, a radically politicized interpretation of Islam has taken the revolutionary baton away from secular Marxism in large parts of the post-colonial world, but subverted it with a brand of universalism that has no respect for such niceties as secularism, democracy, or even the nation-state. Similar religious fundamentalisms have arisen or been strengthened elsewhere, including in the West.

This pincer movement of multicultural liberal 'tolerance' as a political lietmotif on the one side, and radically 'intolerent' religious universalism on the other, has set the context for recent neo-Communist appropriations, in European intellectual circles, of Christianity and in particular a re-evaluation of the role of the Pauline acts as a revolutionary and emancipatory Event in human history.

Wut? Pretty far afield from eRepublik, eh? Well. Yes and no.



This is Caravaggio's "The Conversion on the Way to Damascus". As you can see from the prominent placement of a certain equine feature, Caravaggio had a rather different perspective on Paul's contributions to world history.


As I laid out in the previous section on Nationalism, there is at least a minority of players for whom the pursuit of a universalized vision, free of anti-modernist religious fundamentalism and growing out of the fertilizer provided by the corpse of historical RL communism, is perceived as not only desirable, but as the only truly meaningful (or at least, really fun) way to play the game.

This type of vision is often presented and discussed within leftist circles in terminology that echoes familiar RL tropes: whether anarchism (of the leftist, syndicalist, Bakuninist type) or communism (of the visionary type) is achievable under the constraints of the eRepublik software; whether "e-socialism", meaning the establishment of a progressive, popular and sustainable e-welfare-state of one type or another, is achievable; and what is the role of revolutionary parties, grassroots e-organizations (communes, forums, etc.) and individual players within these efforts.

In RL, the reality is that the semantic and historical umbilical cord between Marxism and Communism is in the process of being severed. In eRep, it is my observation that we can find somewhat similar -- though by no means identical -- arguments presented. For example, taking a look through the variety of "tendencies" offered to members of the Internationale forum is instructive. The Internationale is the group in eRepublik most closely associated with the idea of "e-communism". Noteworthy (with respect to my thesis, anyway!) is how many folks there choose "Other" as their tendency.

The radical belief at work here in the real world is that if Marxism can be abandoned, then the name of Communism, and all that it implies for the possibilities of a world liberated from "evil", can be saved. In RL, such discussions are associated primarily with names like Michael Hardt, Slavoj Žižek, Alain Badiou and Bernard Henri-Lévy, among others.

In eRep, this unfolding debate can be discerned -- through a glass darkly, if you care to look for it -- in the language used by those e-communists, e-socialists and e-anarchists (and others) who prefer distinctive labels like "United Libertarian Community", "Peoples Communists", "Freedom Socialists", "Libertarian Socialists", "Anarcho-Communists", "Trans-Humanist", "Internationalist Workers", "Zapatista" and "Luxembergist" rather than the more "traditional" Marxist-Leninist appelations.




Communism, in this frame, signifies solely the outbreak of communal solidarity; it is distinguished from its reactionary forms by the fact that it carries a substantively new universal category of human endeavour that affects the split within existing social formations in a wholly transformative way.

If it stopped there, and in particular if this (RL) trend viewed Paul as merely one of many radical ruptures with the past, then there would be little significant distinction between this New Communism and its Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, or Maoist antecedants. However, it is not enough for Paul to be an example -- just one in a long historical lineage. People like Badiou instead claim that he in fact founded the originary categories of Communism, even that he was the original universalist.

So, at least for that school of thought, Christianity, and St. Paul in particular, become a demarcation for sorting out the right sort of Communist from the wrong sort.

Now let me be very clear about this.

First of all, I have never heard any leftist in eRepublik repeat Badiou's assertion. Sure. There have been plenty of debates and discussions on the relative merits and demerits of various Christian and other religious traditions and practices in relationship to communist values. I have heard leftists criticize and condemn, as well as praise and uphold, the role of various religion-inspired movements in RL politics. My point is not at all that "e-Communism" is entirely "Badouist" in its specifics. It simply seems that "e-Communism", or at least the universalizing trends within it, like the new "communism without Marx", are seeking for a new way to explore universalism within the game. And that that's pretty interesting.

Secondly. I don't personally agree with Badiou on his Paulist argument. Or, to be more specific, I think he takes too narrow a view. I agree that St. Paul revolutionized the Greek world. I've long found it intriguing, for example, that gnostic wisdom is peppered throughout the Pauline literature.

But I would also argue that Maimonides played a very similar role in Jewish tradition.

And I would observe that the "opening up" of Buddhism with the introduction of Mahayana traditions was equally revolutionary in the sense that the chief goal of the practice became focussed on becoming a bodhisattva interested in ending all suffering for all living things, rather than an arhat who is focussed primarily on annihilating his or her own wheel of karma.

And within Islam, it seems to me that those among its faithful who have tended to see the door of ijtihad (juiridic reasoning) as having never been closed, which is to say, who have consistently refused to believe -- over the centuries -- that the socio-cultural milieu of seventh century Arabia was the pinnacle of human achievement, have carried with them the same almost atavistic desire for human emancipation that we find expressed by the transformative paths found in the other traditions noted above.

And I am tempted to simply add, with a nod to Eve Ensler: Grrrl Power!

So. Anyway. My observation is that "e-communism without Marx" is in the spirit, if not the letter, of Badiou's understanding of and explication of the Event in human history, and that this is an expression, as well (consciously or not), of the psychologically-inspired explorations into the univeralized human need for rebellion against separation and instinct for wholeness described by Žižek.

And that all of this is another step on the centuries-long yearning to find a path to a meaningful global constitution. (Had to throw that in there to give this whole thing a nice Kantian twist, which I know Rev. Seabury has been waiting for! LOL!).




The approaches taken in the game by these e-leftists seem to me to grasp the critical importance of Henri-Lévy's withering criticism of "red fascism" and his condemnation of human rights violations perpetrated in the name of an "anti-imperialism" that lacks any political content. For without embracing such criticism, the Left is a meaningless, hollow shell, a walking corpse, a zombie.

So much of this kind of criticism has become so spectacularized that my "M-L" friends may be forgiven if they don't take me seriously on this. You know the neanderthal type of conservative who goes apoplectic at the sight of a Che Guevara t-shirt? But can't string three words together regarding a critique of "focoism" versus, say, a theory of protracted peoples war? Who doesn't have a clue that Mao is required reading at the Army War College? Well, if criticism of leftist crimes doesn't go any deeper than freaking out about poor ol' Che, then, indeed, why should they be taken seriously?

Speaking of Che, did you know his daughter Celia Guevara is a dolphin veteranarian at the Havana Aquarium? True story. They put on one of the best dolphin shows there that you'll find anywhere.

But I digress...


Commie dolphins


Interestingly, in his well-known critique of the French Left, The Left in Dark Times, Henri-Lévy predicted that an empty, uncritical acceptance of "historical leftism" of the type that leads to atrocities like Pol Pot's and abominations like ETA's will inevitably lead those who align themselves with it into the arms of (pseudo-)islamo-fascism or some other type of "militant" religio-fundamentalism.

And in the hall-of-mirrors carny Event that is eRepublik, sure enough we have an example of that too. The CPSU in e-Russia played out a long, hard-fought, valiant and praiseworthy struggle against the oligarchs and bot armies there. Yet, to be honest, despite their brave efforts, the CPSU was also amongst the most "nostalgic" of eRep's left parties with respect to the nation-state, largely promoting -- albeit in a game context -- exactly the kind of uncritical and nostalgic "leftism" criticized by Henri-Lévy. And in its wake, almost as if on cue, the Islamo-Stalinist Front (the 3rd largest party in eRusiya) has emerged from the ashes of the CPSU.

In many ways, the Islamo-Stalinst Front is the Russian version of the eUSA's S.E.E.S. For one thing, you have to admit that they're both pretty funny postmodern, over-the-top send-ups of expected "norms". And, like S.E.E.S., the Islamo-Stalinist Front is both a response to a perceived breakdown in the order of things, as well as an embrace of reflexive nationalist memes that move inexorably and uncomfortably in the direction of Idi Amin Dada rather than the more amusing types of dada-absurdism.

I find no advantage in either condemning or condoning S.E.E.S. or the Islamo-Stalinst Front. As I have stated elsewhere, it is important to distinguish what is "really real" in eRepublik from everything else. And the only real thing in eRepublik -- aside from the "send us your credit card number" button -- is the "friendship request" button. If I thought players who are drawn to these units were truly "evil", I would simply un-friend them (which I haven't).

People can be annoying. I'm sure that I am. But at the end of the day I can't be bothered with pissing matches. It's more interesting to me to think about and work on building up alternatives. And writing long rambling articles. That's really the only thing I'm much good at.



I can't see you. I can't speak to you. How do I know you are there?


To conclude:

It is my humble (and perhaps not terribly useful) observation that the crisis in e-socialism (as exemplified by the collapse of the CPSU's project in eRussia) and the crisis in e-capitalism (as exemplified primarily by the rise of V2, but also by the upheavals in e-American politics in the wake of last summer's invasion) both seem to lead to the same philosophical cul-de-sac that characterizes our modern real life politics, with the same 3 salient features:

* A growing enthusiasm for 'intolerant' fundamentalist-style politics, sometimes with an overtly religious character, sometimes not.

* A continuing mash-up of of liberal views with respect to 'tolerance' that, while sometimes comforting and 'empowering' to the individual, lacks any vision of the future for a world that is experiencing multiple crises.

* An emerging, but hazy and at times quite upsetting, quest for a universalist vision that is modern and liberating and draws inspiration from, rather than rejects, the great waves of dialectic transformations that make up our common human story. Call this Communism or a new view of Paulism if you like. Or call on Milarepa if you're like that. (I am!). It all amounts to the same common and essential human desire for finding a path to liberation.





Visit the shores of your imagination. Join the Socialist Freedom Party. You'll be glad you did.