edmund.b.berger[at]gmail.com
Advertisements
-
Recent Posts
Twitter
My TweetsArchives
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
Blogroll
- Accelerationism
- Agent Swarm
- Anarchist Without Content
- Attempts at Living
- Collapse
- Continental Drift
- Corporate Watch
- deluzianexcursus
- e-flux
- Foucault News
- Fractal Ontology
- Freize Magazine
- Geographical Imaginations
- Intensive Thinking
- K-Punk
- Larval Subjects
- McLuhan Galaxy
- Media Ecologies
- Meditations
- Mute
- My Desiring Machines
- Noir Realism
- Nomad Scholarship
- Path to the Possible
- Postmedia Lab
I am beginning a study of Deleuze and Guattari as a complement to my work as a psychiatrist and my research into masculinities. Your posts are all of interest to me, and I am just scanning them now for closer reading soon. Can I ask how you came to do these investigations? What is your interest in Deleuze and Guattari? From where do you approach this work? Is there a study group for those wanting to plumb these depths? My interest is on the nature of change, on the genesis and process of transformation.
Hi wellshrink, I sent an email response your way!
Just read your piece on fully autonomated ind. anarchism at c4ss, and I must say:
This is has little to nothing to with “individualist anarchism”, if any anarchist is to be cited in this piece it should be Peter Kropotkin (or maybe Murray Bookchin).
Isn’t Stephen Marglin the guy who wrote that little book “The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community” in which he argued.that markets transactions destroy community?
And what is this “Hayekian knowledge problems” bullshit? Errico Malatesta (in what Turcato called his “Method of freedom”) and Kropotkin were making the similar criticisms ages before Hayek, even James C.Scott, Scott by the way is not a fan of “free markets” (he wrote a whole book on it), he even critizes the price-mechanism in the book you seem to be citing (“Seeing like a State”).
Why are you citing Hayek the poster child for “negative freedom” and the father of neoliberalism in a piece about positive freedom and post-capitalism?
BTW, Kevin Carson, whom you cite, relies a lot on Bookchin (from what I remember).
Meant to say “even James C.Scott admits that his metis argument comes mostly from Proudhon and Kropotkin”.