moten abolition law

i also know that what it is that is supposed to be repaired is irreparable.. it can’t be repaired. the only thing we can do is tear this shit down completely and build something new. – Fred Moten

_______

from Fred and Stefano‘s the undercommons

151

fred: when we talk about debt, to talk about the unpayability of debt is not to fail to acknowledge the debt. but certain mugs just refuse even to acknowledge the debt.. and i think a whole lot of what people want when they want reparation is in fact an acknowledgment, and they want an acknowledgment of the debt because it constitutes something like a form of recognition, and that becomes very problematic because the form of recognition that they want is w/in an already existing system.. 

huge..

152

fred: so basically, i’m w stefano on this, which is that i feel like i want to be part of another project... which is to say  i’m not acceding to the fact; it’s not like i’m just trying to turn my eye from it.. i don’t want to accept in silence w/o protest all the diff forms of ineq and exploitation that emerge as a function of the theft and of the failure to acknowledge the debt..  i don’t believe that what has happened in general is reparable..  i would accept the check.. and be pissed off it ain’t as much as it should be.. but..

i also know that what it is that is supposed to be repaired is irreparable.. it can’t be repaired. the only thing we can do is tear this shit down completely and build something new

short bp to disengage from measuring/accounting/crediting.. et al

154

stefano: what abolition means in that case is the abolition of something like credit or measurability or attribution, in a certain way

yes.. in all the ways.

attribution.. measure..  credit.. et al

fred: an abolition of credit.. of the system of credit, which is to say, maybe it’s an abolition of accounting. it says that when we start to talk about our common resources.. when we talk about what marx means by wealth – the division of it, the accumulation of it, the privatization of it, and the accounting of it.. all of that shit should be abolished.. i mean, you can’t count how much we owe one another.. it’s not countable. it doesn’t even work that way..  matter of fact, it’s so radical that it probably destabilizes the very social form or idea of ‘one another’

exactly… 10 day cares ness..

155

fred: but that’s what edouard glissant is leading us towards when he talks about what it is ‘to consent not to be a single being‘.. and if you think about it, it is a sort of filial and essentially a maternal relation.. when i say ‘maternal’ what i’m implying there is the possibility of a general socialisation of the maternal..   ie: people were telling us ‘she owes her son a hundred thousand dollars’ and me and laura, driving back, we were like, ‘how you gonna owe your son a hundred thousand dollars? how do you owe a parent a hundred thousand dollars?’ that’s some crazy barbaric shit. you have to be a barbaric monster to even be able to think of some shit like that. you know what? it’s no more barbaric than owing wells fargo bank a hundred thousand dollars.. you think at first glance that it’s barbaric because it appears to violate some sort of notion of filial, maternal relation between a mother and son.. relation. but, it’s barbaric because it’s a barbaric way of understanding our undercommon ness.. it’s just particularly blatant because it’s a relation between a mother and son..

fred: so the abolition of credit, the abolition of the entire way of looking at the world, which let’s say we can place under the rubric of accounting or accountability or accountableness, or something, of calculation in that sense – the abolition of that, in a way that david graeber thinks about it, but w/o any kind of sense of a return to some orginary state of grace, but instead carrying all of what that history has imposed upon us..

accountable.. of math and men.. marsh exchage law.. et al

david graeber.. et al

a nother way

fred: hence this argument about where the autonomist got what they got.. you know.. i love clr james.. but the shit that we now have under his name, was never his private property. jazz aint’ black people’s private property. and that doesn’t mean that musicians shouldn’t get paid for what they do, w/in the context of this shit.. what i’m really saying when i say that is: anybody who’s breathing should have everything that they need and 93% of what they want – not bey virtue of the fact that you work today, but by virtue of the fact that you are here..

huge.. indeed… let’s try this (short bp) to get there.. nationality: human

156

stefano: so you want to figure out some way that that wealth can be enjoyed. and that’s not by managing it, because managin it is the first step to accounting for it, attributing it or distributing it.. it’s about developing some way of being w each other and of not thinking that that requires the mediation of politics.. but it requires elaboration/improvisation.. a kind of rehearsal.. it requries things.. it’s just that it doesn’t require accounting or management. it requires study..

rev of everyday life.. sans money/measuring.. via 2 convos.. as the day

157

stefano: this is the only way it could be when we think of ability and need freed fo the standpoint and then this is not a distributional politics anymore but an experiment in letting yourself discover new needs in your abilities and new abilities in your needs in the rhythm of, not against, the general antagonism, performed between the two and amongst the many

have/need ness of our one ness.. (tribes that don’t say thank you).. a simple message

158

stefano: where you find the abolition of credit you find study.

credit..

study

_______

first intro’d to it via J here:

(2016) on object of reconciliation (reuniting.. making compatible) and abolition (action/act of abolishing a system, practice, or institution)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSfHhahfOr0]

what would it be to think of the reconciliation and reconciliation studies as precisely that project of study.. that as it does it work.. it’s completion is precisely the negation of that project of study

reconciliation can only be that project of study that finally negates itself.. because it takes as its object of study.. what would it mean to dismantle the very conditions that make reconciliation as a project necessary

maybe the project isn’t reconciliation.. maybe it’s not even reparations.. because how do you repair what is unrepairable..  how do you restore what was lost for the faces at the bottom of the atlantic.. what does reconciliation mean for them

so maybe the horizon of the project is neither reconciliation.. nor even reparation.. not because reparations is bad.. but because it will always be incomplete..

so the horizon of the project.. to be in abolition..

abolishing a system, practice, or institution

i’m down w organization and organizing.. but i’m not so much down w the project of the organizer.. that’s w the sovereign again

jesus was about being the savior w/o needing to be the savior.. to look at jesus you have to look at the least of these.. this is a savior who does not aggregate to himself..

imagine a world org’d in such a way that is not org’s around a central figure

what is the object of study.. what if it’s the theory of practice.. or the practicing of the theory of abolitionism..

__________

thread.. starts w graeber’s bs jobs ness.. and how ed is feeder.. and how to unlearn

@FluidityAuthor @wruser @davidgraeber @LPanwill why not just not learn that in the first place..

begs moten abolition law

Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/monk51295/status/1021162354988408832

__________

why outside

___________

a nother way.. back to our undisturbed ecosystem‘in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]

________

laws\ish

Advertisements