Take Me To The River: From The Topography To The Topology Of Terrorism

This song is dedicated to little Junior Parker, a cousin of mine who's
gone on, but we're gonna carry on in his name - Al Green

One of the more interesting documents of the twentieth century is "The
Personal Act", written in 1933 by the council communist Anton
Pannekoek ("Karl Horner"). In this article, Pannekoek examines the
significance of the Reichstag fire having been set by the Communist
van der Lubbe. Unlike other members of the middle-European Communist
left (on both sides of the split into pro- and anti-Soviet factions
which had existed for ten years by that point) Pannekoek had no
illusions about the immediate consequences of the act, namely an
intensification of government "terror" (his word) directed at German
leftists. And Pannekoek also did not believe that the German
bourgeoisie had been significantly weakened by the action, that qua
"message" it of course said nothing to the machinery of capital which
ruled Europe. In fact, Pannekoek rejects every positive value for the
act; it was as destructive as the Nazis said. Yet Pannekoek maintains
there was some value to the act. What could this value be?

Well, in retrospect the Reichstag fire appears to have been the
decisive event in Hitler's complete seziure of power, and this because
the issue of Nazi involvement in the Reichstag fire has itself burned
for seventy years now; although van der Lubbe was involved in the act
of arson, the extent and speed with which the building burned suggests
he was at most the principal, and the subsequent acquittal of the
Communist leadership (even under partial suspension of the rule of
law) suggests him as principal for other interests. Pannekoek knew
none of this, but none of it is incompatible with the value he
suggested for the act; a simple exercise of proletarian subjectivity,
a reminder that yes, working people have opinions. When Pannekoek says
"Likewise, in a rising movement, this interaction of forces and acts
is of great value when it is guided by a clear comprehension that
animates, at this moment, the workers which is necessary to develop
their combativity. But in this case, so much tenacity, audacity, and
courage will be called for that it will not be necessary to burn a
Parliament" he means it. But on this perspective, the Reichstag fire
serves as a "lower bound" for such proletarian subjectivity; if even
this can be understood to have a liberatory aspect, what of the rest
of the plans the people make? Well, hopefully better ones; but
Pannekoek also realized when assessing his radical brethren (although
not as well as some) that no child could be left behind.

America is still considering 9/11, although less vocally than before.
But what has yet to be considered in any socially significant detail
is the issue of internal responsibility for the action, as we have an
near-phantasmic organization of beyond-radical evil (Al-Qaeda) to
blame the event on. The issue of "soft support" for 9/11 in the Arab
community has been breached, but putting the issue in this way
(eliding questions of citizenship and yes, human rights) merely sets
another group outside the American fold, such that they can be
subjected to more intense scrutiny than we who stand united. But no
less than the conspirators from Al-Qaeda (which organization
apparently has about as much to do with the "Arab street" as pouring
malt liquor on the curb; the Muslim Brotherhood, the other
organization involved in 9/11, has broad-based support, but is famous
for its members being out of tune with the rhythms of Islamic
society), the American institutions whose interstices they passed
through in the months preceding 9/11, and the disaffection of
individuals involved in those institutions, was a necessary condition
for the event.

What do we know of Al-Qaeda? What we are told, what we see on the
television -- certainly not what we know of Hamas due to their strong
popular support among Palestinians, created by their charitable work.
Could they be an incredibly evil group with the power to destroy the
United States?  Approximately, but we know approximately the same
amount about the Skull and Bones organization based at Yale and do not
draw that conclusion; because we know from American life that the
whims of Skull and Bones members are not an important part of everyday
life, however much power they may wield. Is Al-Qaeda's claim that they
have the interests of humanity at heart false by their lights? Well,
again, we have about as much evidence to go on as with our president's
club, and we don't go on their word when they say they have done
things they would be lynched for "if the people knew". But perhaps the
moral that should be drawn from this is not that President Bush is
equivalent to Osama bin Laden, but that the methods by which both
achieve their aims are not simple expressions of their will, but mass
processes that permit a great deal of popular participation.

Which requires tenacity, audacity, and courage from people who have
not been acclaimed "real heroes" by network television, but also a
substantive recognition of the fact that terrorism does not exist in a
vacuum; it is actually quite likely that any given American has met
someone somehow involved in terrorist activities on behalf of some
"special interest" or other, and not only found them personable, but
also found their "double life" economically expedient and the
possibility of open discourse about the issues addressed through
"propaganda of the deed" inexpedient. So perhaps it is time to
consider the issue of amnesty in a "theological" light, as the
question of salvation; and see the issue posed for political theory by
the Protestant world-view as not one of the "work ethic", but one of
the "inscrutability" of acts as to their status as seditious or
treasonous.  In other words, we who act towards our government in
"good faith" and despise those who do not should realize that this is
a justification by faith, that is to say not much of a guarantee that
our actions are actually "virtuous" in this respect (no matter what
our political or ethnic identity); and requires the direction of
attention towards the universal character of a democratic government,
its mission being to serve the entire people, not just the obviously
"virtuous" ones.

Diese illusionslose Gewissheit fuehrt Rosa Luxemburg in ihren Kaempfen
fuer die Befreiung des Proletariats: seiner wirtschaftlichen und
politischen Befreiung aus der materiellen Knechtschaft in
Kapitalismus; seiner ideologischen Befreiung aus der geistigen
Knechtschaft in Opportunismus.

-- Lukacs, "Rosa Luxemburg als Marxist"