Suchergebnisse

The relationship between anarchy and the law is, to say the least, an uncomfortable one. The so-called 'classical' anarchist position – in all its heterogeneous tendencies – is, usually, characterised by a total opposition against the law. However and despite its invaluable contribution and the ever-pertinent critique of the state of affairs, this 'classical' anarchist position needs to be re-examined and rearticulated if it is to pose an effective nuisance to the current (and much complex) mechanisms of domination and the oppression of dogmatism and dominance of the law. Taking into account the aforementioned challenges, in this article, I examine and develop two notions of the philosophical thought of Gilles Deleuze, namely that of the institution and that of the nomos of the nomads. In doing so, I aim to think anew the relationship between anarchy and the law and, ultimately, to point towards an ethico-political account, of what I shall call an an-archic nomos which escapes(or, at least, tries to) the dogmatism and "archist" mentality of the law.

Populist discourses, despite their multiple differences and often oppositional political agendas, share a common feature. This feature is the construction of a notion of "the people" as "the underdog" that stands against the essentialist politics of "the elites." In this article, I argue that this construction of "the people" is fundamentally problematic due to two, interconnected reasons. First, the primacy which is given to "the people" as a political agent, who is the rightful holder of a notion of "common good," leads to the formation of politics that are essentialist and exclusionary. Drawing from Max Stirner's notion of the "spook" or "phantasm," I argue that "the people" become such and thus, the political demands of populist discourses remain "haunted" by this moral primacy of "the people." Secondly, the construction of "the people" as "the underdog" suggests that their construction is based on negative feelings of envy and revenge, what Friedrich Nietzsche diagnosed as the feeling of ressentiment. This feeling of ressentiment renders the political demands of populism incapable of producing an affirmative version of politics. As a result, populist discourses not only are incapable of becoming a threat to the fatalistic, neoliberal politics of the capitalist market but at worse they become their accomplices.

The relationship between anarchy and the law is, to say the least, an uncomfortable one. The so-called 'classical' anarchist position – in all its heterogeneous tendencies – is, usually, characterised by a total opposition against the law. However and despite its invaluable contribution and the ever-pertinent critique of the state of affairs, this 'classical' anarchist position needs to be re-examined and rearticulated if it is to pose an effective nuisance to the current (and much complex) mechanisms of domination and the oppression of dogmatism and dominance of the law. Taking into account the aforementioned challenges, in this article, I examine and develop two notions of the philosophical thought of Gilles Deleuze, namely that of the institution and that of the nomos of the nomads. In doing so, I aim to think anew the relationship between anarchy and the law and, ultimately, to point towards an ethico-political account, of what I shall call an an-archic nomos which escapes(or, at least, tries to) the dogmatism and "archist" mentality of the law.

Police violence is spiraling out of control all across the globe. Towards Anti-policing dares to imagine what kind of world might be possible in the absence of policing and clears a radical path for communities to follow beyond the long, dark shadow of the thin blue line.