What do you think?
Rate this book
The Meaning of Sarkozy
In this incisive, acerbic work, Alain Badiou looks beyond the petty vulgarity of the French president to decipher the true significance of what he represents—a reactionary tradition that goes back more than a hundred years. To escape the malaise that has enveloped the Left since Sarkozy’s election, Badiou casts aside the slavish worship of electoral democracy and maps out a communist hypothesis that lays the basis for an emancipatory politics of the twenty-first century.
128 pages, Paperback
First published October 26, 2007
4 people are currently reading
185 people want to read
About the author
Alain Badiou
368 books1,015 followersAlain Badiou, Ph.D., born in Rabat, Morocco in 1937, holds the Rene Descartes Chair at the European Graduate School EGS. Alain Badiou was a student at the École Normale Supérieure in the 1950s. He taught at the University of Paris VIII (Vincennes-Saint Denis) from 1969 until 1999, when he returned to ENS as the Chair of the philosophy department. He continues to teach a popular seminar at the Collège International de Philosophie, on topics ranging from the great 'antiphilosophers' (Saint-Paul, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Lacan) to the major conceptual innovations of the twentieth century. Much of Badiou's life has been shaped by his dedication to the consequences of the May 1968 revolt in Paris. Long a leading member of Union des jeunesses communistes de France (marxistes-léninistes), he remains with Sylvain Lazarus and Natacha Michel at the center of L'Organisation Politique, a post-party organization concerned with direct popular intervention in a wide range of issues (including immigration, labor, and housing). He is the author of several successful novels and plays as well as more than a dozen philosophical works.
Trained as a mathematician, Alain Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers today. Influenced by Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze, he is an outspoken critic of both the analytic as well as the postmodern schools of thoughts. His philosophy seeks to expose and make sense of the potential of radical innovation (revolution, invention, transfiguration) in every situation.
Trained as a mathematician, Alain Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers today. Influenced by Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze, he is an outspoken critic of both the analytic as well as the postmodern schools of thoughts. His philosophy seeks to expose and make sense of the potential of radical innovation (revolution, invention, transfiguration) in every situation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 23, 2011
The French have an international reputation as revolutionaries, rebels and rioters. But as philosopher Alain Badiou points out in The Meaning of Sarkozy, the everyday reality is a different story.
"France is also a deeply conservative country, which responds to the revolutionary episodes in its history with long sequences of black reaction," he says.
"Those who have come to power in these painful sequences have never lacked the support of numerous and well-established intellectual cliques."
It is for this reason, says Badiou, that France has one of its most conservative leaders yet, in Nicolas Sarkozy. He celebrated his election as president in 2007 by dining at Paris restaurant Fouquet's - traditionally the after-party location for France's equivalent of the Oscars - and then holidaying in Malta on a billionaire friend's yacht. The message, says Badiou, was: "The Left no longer scares anyone. Up with the rich, down with the poor."
Sarkozy was a mayor of a town where hereditary wealth is concentrated among "dominant and privileged people who sense that their privileges are conditional and under threat and that their domination is perhaps only provisional and already shaky". He has played upon such concerns by stoking fears "of foreigners, of workers, of the people, of youngsters from the banlieues [slums], Muslims, black Africans... This fear, conservative and gloomy, creates the desire for a master who will protect you, even if only while oppressing and impoverishing you all the more."
Badiou likens Sarkozy to a twitchy cop, a middle management banker or an accountant. He is a "minuscule character in direct communication with the lowest form of opinion polls", whose slavery to consensus has led him to declare pedophilia a genetic defect and himself a born heterosexual. His persecution of pedophiles is strange, suggests Badiou, when considering Sarkozy married someone far younger than himself - professional model Carla Bruni.
Once elected, "Sarkozy hammered home the point that he was now president of us all". But Sarkozy's vision divides the world, setting the powerful against the persecuted, says Badiou. Where once the walls divided east from west, they now divide the global north and south. If globalisation and the international community were a reality rather than just neoliberal buzzwords, foreigners would have to be welcomed everywhere, he says. Instead, "the state authorities and their blind followers will keep tabs on them, ban them from staying, mercilessly criticise their customs, their way of dressing, their family or religious practices". The parallels with Australia are obvious. Ironically, the divide is painted as "a purely moral opposition between despotic and cruel states and states based on law - without of course explaining the origin of the gigantic massacres committed on a planetary scale for a century and a half by these 'lawful' states...
"The final dialectic is that of fear and terror. A state legitimised by fear is virtually fit to become terroristic...
"Democratic forms are being found for a state terror at the level of contemporary technology: radar, photos, internet controls, systematic bugging of all telephones, mapping of people's movements. The perspective of the state that we face is one of virtual terror, its key mechanism being surveillance, and increasingly also informing...
"The technological means for controlling the population are already such that Stalin, with his endless handwritten files, his mass executions, his spies with hats, his gigantic lice-ridden camps and bestial tortures, appears like an amateur from another age."
Badiou cites Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek as saying that what was not understood, when Stalinism and parliamentary democracy were counterposed to one another, was that Stalinism was the future of parliamentary democracy. Elections now do nothing but impose the established order, the so-called Left are generally socially polite capitalists, and the government would be little different if chosen by lottery. "The French revolutionaries, who were republicans and not democrats, termed 'corruption' the subjection of governmental power to business matters."
In this sense, Sarkozy has brought corruption out into the open, says Badiou.
So what is the answer? For a start, it is alternative media.
"A newspaper that belongs to rich managers does not have to be read by someone who is neither a manager nor rich," says Badiou.
"Just look at what these newspapers, as well as the most popular television channels, really are. They belong to the king of concrete, the prince of luxury products, the emperor of military aircraft, the magnate of celebrity magazines, the water millionaire... In other words, to all those people who, on their yachts or their estates, take little Sarkozy, who has done so well, on their hospitable knees. How can we accept this state of affairs? Why should the broad mass of people be at the mercy of the price of concrete mixers or the world market for ostrich skin, when it comes to getting information? Stop reading those papers. Look at sources that originate elsewhere than in the dominant commercial circuits. Let the ultra-rich newspaper proprietors talk to themselves. Let us withdraw our interest from the interests that their self-interest wants to make ours."
The answer also lies in what Badiou calls psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan's "cure": "to raise impotence to impossibility" through "courage". In other words, to be idealistic and never be discouraged from being so. Vive la revolution.
"France is also a deeply conservative country, which responds to the revolutionary episodes in its history with long sequences of black reaction," he says.
"Those who have come to power in these painful sequences have never lacked the support of numerous and well-established intellectual cliques."
It is for this reason, says Badiou, that France has one of its most conservative leaders yet, in Nicolas Sarkozy. He celebrated his election as president in 2007 by dining at Paris restaurant Fouquet's - traditionally the after-party location for France's equivalent of the Oscars - and then holidaying in Malta on a billionaire friend's yacht. The message, says Badiou, was: "The Left no longer scares anyone. Up with the rich, down with the poor."
Sarkozy was a mayor of a town where hereditary wealth is concentrated among "dominant and privileged people who sense that their privileges are conditional and under threat and that their domination is perhaps only provisional and already shaky". He has played upon such concerns by stoking fears "of foreigners, of workers, of the people, of youngsters from the banlieues [slums], Muslims, black Africans... This fear, conservative and gloomy, creates the desire for a master who will protect you, even if only while oppressing and impoverishing you all the more."
Badiou likens Sarkozy to a twitchy cop, a middle management banker or an accountant. He is a "minuscule character in direct communication with the lowest form of opinion polls", whose slavery to consensus has led him to declare pedophilia a genetic defect and himself a born heterosexual. His persecution of pedophiles is strange, suggests Badiou, when considering Sarkozy married someone far younger than himself - professional model Carla Bruni.
Once elected, "Sarkozy hammered home the point that he was now president of us all". But Sarkozy's vision divides the world, setting the powerful against the persecuted, says Badiou. Where once the walls divided east from west, they now divide the global north and south. If globalisation and the international community were a reality rather than just neoliberal buzzwords, foreigners would have to be welcomed everywhere, he says. Instead, "the state authorities and their blind followers will keep tabs on them, ban them from staying, mercilessly criticise their customs, their way of dressing, their family or religious practices". The parallels with Australia are obvious. Ironically, the divide is painted as "a purely moral opposition between despotic and cruel states and states based on law - without of course explaining the origin of the gigantic massacres committed on a planetary scale for a century and a half by these 'lawful' states...
"The final dialectic is that of fear and terror. A state legitimised by fear is virtually fit to become terroristic...
"Democratic forms are being found for a state terror at the level of contemporary technology: radar, photos, internet controls, systematic bugging of all telephones, mapping of people's movements. The perspective of the state that we face is one of virtual terror, its key mechanism being surveillance, and increasingly also informing...
"The technological means for controlling the population are already such that Stalin, with his endless handwritten files, his mass executions, his spies with hats, his gigantic lice-ridden camps and bestial tortures, appears like an amateur from another age."
Badiou cites Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek as saying that what was not understood, when Stalinism and parliamentary democracy were counterposed to one another, was that Stalinism was the future of parliamentary democracy. Elections now do nothing but impose the established order, the so-called Left are generally socially polite capitalists, and the government would be little different if chosen by lottery. "The French revolutionaries, who were republicans and not democrats, termed 'corruption' the subjection of governmental power to business matters."
In this sense, Sarkozy has brought corruption out into the open, says Badiou.
So what is the answer? For a start, it is alternative media.
"A newspaper that belongs to rich managers does not have to be read by someone who is neither a manager nor rich," says Badiou.
"Just look at what these newspapers, as well as the most popular television channels, really are. They belong to the king of concrete, the prince of luxury products, the emperor of military aircraft, the magnate of celebrity magazines, the water millionaire... In other words, to all those people who, on their yachts or their estates, take little Sarkozy, who has done so well, on their hospitable knees. How can we accept this state of affairs? Why should the broad mass of people be at the mercy of the price of concrete mixers or the world market for ostrich skin, when it comes to getting information? Stop reading those papers. Look at sources that originate elsewhere than in the dominant commercial circuits. Let the ultra-rich newspaper proprietors talk to themselves. Let us withdraw our interest from the interests that their self-interest wants to make ours."
The answer also lies in what Badiou calls psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan's "cure": "to raise impotence to impossibility" through "courage". In other words, to be idealistic and never be discouraged from being so. Vive la revolution.
March 27, 2013
My only complaint about this book is against its title. What sounds like a dry, inside-baseball exploration of French politics (of a now deposed President, no less) is in fact an impassioned, inspiring, challenging call to action for all of us who dream of a better world (but who realize it will take hard thinking and hard work to bring it about).
Badiou highlights so many of the outrageous facts and unquestioned assumptions of the current "world" "order", it's hard to know where to begin. So just go ahead and begin at page one of this wonderful text, and don't bother stopping until you've arrived, changed, at page 117.
Badiou highlights so many of the outrageous facts and unquestioned assumptions of the current "world" "order", it's hard to know where to begin. So just go ahead and begin at page one of this wonderful text, and don't bother stopping until you've arrived, changed, at page 117.
August 14, 2012
Whether or not we agree with Badiou’s notion of the communist hypothesis, there is little doubt that even after he lost the French presidency, this analysis of what Sarkozy represents has lost little of its power. The first real strength of the case is that Sarkozy’s politics of the right are not aberrant in French history, but the norm (Badiou argues that we outsiders too often focus on the moments of change and liberation – 1789, 1870, the Resistance of the 1941-44, 1968) and miss the long years of reaction and conservatism in between. On top of that, his eight point ‘manifesto’ (pp 43-51) still resonates and can provide the basis of important political action; viz
1) Assume that all workers labouring here belong here, and must be treated on the basis of equality, and respected accordingly – indeed honoured – especially workers of foreign origin;
2) Art as creation, whatever its epoch and nationality, is superior to culture as consumption, no matter how contemporary;
3) Science, which is inherently free, is absolutely superior to technology, even and especially, when the technology is profitable;
4) Love must be reinvented …, but also quite simply defended;
5) Any sick person who asks for a doctor to treat them should be examined and treated as well as possible, in the present conditions of medicine as the doctor understands these, and unconditionally with respect to age, nationality, ‘culture’, administrative status or financial resources;
6) Any process that is intended to serve as a fragment of a politics of emancipation must be held superior to any managerial necessity;
7) A newspaper that belongs to rich managers does not have to be read by someone who is neither rich nor a manager;
8) There is only one world.
even if the eight in this juxtaposition may seem somewhat enigmatic.
As an analysis of the state of France in the mid-to-late 2000’s, the time leading up to Sarkozy’s victory then, this is a compelling case. There is, however, much more to it – this is the place where Baidou outlines what he labels ‘The Communist Hypothesis’ that has become such an important element of debates on the left, including the two high profile and well attended ‘Idea of Communism’ conferences in London and New York. For Baidou, the communist hypothesis starts from two related negations 9see p 98): first, “that the logic of classes, of the fundamental subordination of people who actually work for a dominant class, can be overcome”, and second, that “the oligarchic power of those who possess wealth and organize its circulation, crystallized in the might of states, is not inescapable”. Both of these points, these negations, are drawn from The Communist Manifesto but pervade writings on the left – both Marxist and other forms of revolutionary thought. Following on from these two negations, Badiou pares back an array of writings from the left to propose in stark terms the key idea at the heart of Marx’s writing (but that we can also see in work by, for instance, Bakunin and other anarchist writers as well): “a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour: every individual will be a ‘multi-purpose worker’, and in particular people will circulate between manual and intellectual work, as well between town and country.” (p 98) He then goes on to push this hypothesis further – not the idea of communism but its role. He argues that communism is a set of general “intellectual representations” (p 99) that provide the horizons, the limits, of political (in the broadest sense) initiatives the refuse to accept the limits imposed by established and orthodox views and opinions about the necessity of inequality and its protection by the state; such an initiative is, in his view “a fragment of a politics of emancipation.” (p 99) The link to Sarkozy is explicit and direct – his claim that it is time to move beyond 1968 means, for Badiou, “agreeing that our only choice is between the heredity nihilism of finance and social piety.” (p 102)
Badiou is at an advantage in comparison with other analysts here – his Maoist past (and residual present) means that for him the collapse of the USSR was not the end of communism (or for that matter the end of history) but an opportunity to reformulate and reassert the communist hypothesis as a vision; his residual Maoism means that he does not need to accept the current state capitalism of China as a mode of communism either (as it has not been since Deng Xiaoping’s ‘four modernizations’ launched in the late 1970s). To his credit, in this volume he does not fall into the trap of debating the Soviet-Union-as-Marxist/Communist problem but getting right to the question of what is necessary now – hence his ‘eight points’ with the variable immediacy (re, migration and health) and utopianism (re, the reinvention of love) and all points between. I found this more compelling than his more recent collection The Communist Hypothesis in part because of its immediacy while the latter collection fell into the trap of recapitulating some old debates; at fewer than 120 pages, it is a fast and engaging read. What is more, it has opened up a provocative set of debates on the left including Žižek, Jodi Dean, Bruno Bosteels and others.
1) Assume that all workers labouring here belong here, and must be treated on the basis of equality, and respected accordingly – indeed honoured – especially workers of foreign origin;
2) Art as creation, whatever its epoch and nationality, is superior to culture as consumption, no matter how contemporary;
3) Science, which is inherently free, is absolutely superior to technology, even and especially, when the technology is profitable;
4) Love must be reinvented …, but also quite simply defended;
5) Any sick person who asks for a doctor to treat them should be examined and treated as well as possible, in the present conditions of medicine as the doctor understands these, and unconditionally with respect to age, nationality, ‘culture’, administrative status or financial resources;
6) Any process that is intended to serve as a fragment of a politics of emancipation must be held superior to any managerial necessity;
7) A newspaper that belongs to rich managers does not have to be read by someone who is neither rich nor a manager;
8) There is only one world.
even if the eight in this juxtaposition may seem somewhat enigmatic.
As an analysis of the state of France in the mid-to-late 2000’s, the time leading up to Sarkozy’s victory then, this is a compelling case. There is, however, much more to it – this is the place where Baidou outlines what he labels ‘The Communist Hypothesis’ that has become such an important element of debates on the left, including the two high profile and well attended ‘Idea of Communism’ conferences in London and New York. For Baidou, the communist hypothesis starts from two related negations 9see p 98): first, “that the logic of classes, of the fundamental subordination of people who actually work for a dominant class, can be overcome”, and second, that “the oligarchic power of those who possess wealth and organize its circulation, crystallized in the might of states, is not inescapable”. Both of these points, these negations, are drawn from The Communist Manifesto but pervade writings on the left – both Marxist and other forms of revolutionary thought. Following on from these two negations, Badiou pares back an array of writings from the left to propose in stark terms the key idea at the heart of Marx’s writing (but that we can also see in work by, for instance, Bakunin and other anarchist writers as well): “a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour: every individual will be a ‘multi-purpose worker’, and in particular people will circulate between manual and intellectual work, as well between town and country.” (p 98) He then goes on to push this hypothesis further – not the idea of communism but its role. He argues that communism is a set of general “intellectual representations” (p 99) that provide the horizons, the limits, of political (in the broadest sense) initiatives the refuse to accept the limits imposed by established and orthodox views and opinions about the necessity of inequality and its protection by the state; such an initiative is, in his view “a fragment of a politics of emancipation.” (p 99) The link to Sarkozy is explicit and direct – his claim that it is time to move beyond 1968 means, for Badiou, “agreeing that our only choice is between the heredity nihilism of finance and social piety.” (p 102)
Badiou is at an advantage in comparison with other analysts here – his Maoist past (and residual present) means that for him the collapse of the USSR was not the end of communism (or for that matter the end of history) but an opportunity to reformulate and reassert the communist hypothesis as a vision; his residual Maoism means that he does not need to accept the current state capitalism of China as a mode of communism either (as it has not been since Deng Xiaoping’s ‘four modernizations’ launched in the late 1970s). To his credit, in this volume he does not fall into the trap of debating the Soviet-Union-as-Marxist/Communist problem but getting right to the question of what is necessary now – hence his ‘eight points’ with the variable immediacy (re, migration and health) and utopianism (re, the reinvention of love) and all points between. I found this more compelling than his more recent collection The Communist Hypothesis in part because of its immediacy while the latter collection fell into the trap of recapitulating some old debates; at fewer than 120 pages, it is a fast and engaging read. What is more, it has opened up a provocative set of debates on the left including Žižek, Jodi Dean, Bruno Bosteels and others.
August 22, 2018
Rats, Spoiled Again
The Sarkozy era is over, at least for now. Gone are the days of "Merkozy" defining the European economic ship of state and now we are left with a rather blandish white Hollandaise. The book contains 9 chapters, only one of which is in the least bit interesting or worth discussing - Ch 4. For a "famous" French philosopher, Badiou has regressed into being a silly old fart who revels in name calling, the gory of the French Revolution, the Paris Commune and the student riots of 1968. The preface is a street level rant where he defends his right to call Sarkozy a "Rat Man". Zoomorphism for me, proclaims the persnickety philosophe, I can degrade the humanity of those I dislike. Or worse, Sarkozy is guilty of Petainism, "servile to the powers that be", a crime to be sure, but Badiou offers little to make it stick. Truth be told, the "excesses" of Sarkozy he complains about of having rich friends or a celebrity wife or encouraging meritocracy, at least in word if not by deed, were rather drab compared to the neighbour Berlosconi, another icon who has since sunk. Badiou would preferred "slithered", yet curiously Berlosconi has risen once more. The advantage of hindsight is that we get to critique the author's foresight, or lack thereof.
Badiou believes that the Communist ideal can be resurrected, not the failed fascism of the Soviet State, nor the collapsed Parti Communiste Français, but the original. To wield power, financial or political is to be corrupt (p35), turning the rest of us into vassals (pp40). Marx's "spectre that is haunting Europe" is the inevitable overthrow of the bourgouisie. "There is only one world" is the mantra he repeats again and again and again, and we are all equal, especially Malian dishwashers who will particularly honoured (pp45) or the immigrant without the proper papers. (And if the Islamist succeed in Mali there will be more of them looking for work in Marseille, which is may be why the Socialist M. Hollandaise, who is perhaps not leftist enough, has sent the French air force to intervene.) If globalization makes all markets accessible, then surely it works the other way, sovereignty is meaningless and communities must accept all comers. For this one can simply read Chapter 4 and throw away the rest of the book. With force if need be.
For an egalitarian, Badiou is an unabashed elitist - as long as it is his elite. The labourer (who is more often a reactionary as he has something to defend), the artist, the scientist, but not the technologist who turns science into profit, and of course the philosopher and the mathematician, all of who he holds in high esteem. And we should take turns, only please let me know when it is Alain's turn to be a brain surgeon as I'd like to schedule my operation for another day. Yes, a poor man does not have to read a rich man's newspaper, or a newspaper at all, but if enough poor men (and women) do read the same paper or shops at the same well run market, the poor owner becomes the wealthy owner and we're all at it again.
Nor does Badiou have any sense of Sarkozy's failings or accomplishments. The former President can certainly be faulted for his negative attitude towards social outreach in community policing (he criticized police engaging youth with soccer games) , but should be praised on his focus of training in education. To read Badiou is to only learn of his disdain without a soupçon of substance or insight.
Damnably Badiou cites Book 9 of the Republic, and gets it wrong. (pp69) Socrates decries that though the perfect polis cannot be implemented here, perhaps in another city it may be possible. Badiou takes this as a signal that we don't have to look to other cities, the people of those places are here. "Foreigners are not a problem, they are an opportunity" - a sentiment with which I completely agree, but Badiou should consider that their wisdom was to leave home and come to us, and not the other way around.
I confess I don't think much of Badiou's "only one world", because it or any one idea is going to be bad for me or thee if carried to excess. Badiou has fallen into the trap of logical purity; from bad premises come bad conclusions. No matter where we are there should always be those other places to serve our other desires, opportunities to escape and start anew. His one world is not enough, especially if it turns out to be the wrong choice. There must always be alternate possibilities, if for no other reason than that we do not all share the the same inclinations or ideals.
The Sarkozy era is over, at least for now. Gone are the days of "Merkozy" defining the European economic ship of state and now we are left with a rather blandish white Hollandaise. The book contains 9 chapters, only one of which is in the least bit interesting or worth discussing - Ch 4. For a "famous" French philosopher, Badiou has regressed into being a silly old fart who revels in name calling, the gory of the French Revolution, the Paris Commune and the student riots of 1968. The preface is a street level rant where he defends his right to call Sarkozy a "Rat Man". Zoomorphism for me, proclaims the persnickety philosophe, I can degrade the humanity of those I dislike. Or worse, Sarkozy is guilty of Petainism, "servile to the powers that be", a crime to be sure, but Badiou offers little to make it stick. Truth be told, the "excesses" of Sarkozy he complains about of having rich friends or a celebrity wife or encouraging meritocracy, at least in word if not by deed, were rather drab compared to the neighbour Berlosconi, another icon who has since sunk. Badiou would preferred "slithered", yet curiously Berlosconi has risen once more. The advantage of hindsight is that we get to critique the author's foresight, or lack thereof.
Badiou believes that the Communist ideal can be resurrected, not the failed fascism of the Soviet State, nor the collapsed Parti Communiste Français, but the original. To wield power, financial or political is to be corrupt (p35), turning the rest of us into vassals (pp40). Marx's "spectre that is haunting Europe" is the inevitable overthrow of the bourgouisie. "There is only one world" is the mantra he repeats again and again and again, and we are all equal, especially Malian dishwashers who will particularly honoured (pp45) or the immigrant without the proper papers. (And if the Islamist succeed in Mali there will be more of them looking for work in Marseille, which is may be why the Socialist M. Hollandaise, who is perhaps not leftist enough, has sent the French air force to intervene.) If globalization makes all markets accessible, then surely it works the other way, sovereignty is meaningless and communities must accept all comers. For this one can simply read Chapter 4 and throw away the rest of the book. With force if need be.
For an egalitarian, Badiou is an unabashed elitist - as long as it is his elite. The labourer (who is more often a reactionary as he has something to defend), the artist, the scientist, but not the technologist who turns science into profit, and of course the philosopher and the mathematician, all of who he holds in high esteem. And we should take turns, only please let me know when it is Alain's turn to be a brain surgeon as I'd like to schedule my operation for another day. Yes, a poor man does not have to read a rich man's newspaper, or a newspaper at all, but if enough poor men (and women) do read the same paper or shops at the same well run market, the poor owner becomes the wealthy owner and we're all at it again.
Nor does Badiou have any sense of Sarkozy's failings or accomplishments. The former President can certainly be faulted for his negative attitude towards social outreach in community policing (he criticized police engaging youth with soccer games) , but should be praised on his focus of training in education. To read Badiou is to only learn of his disdain without a soupçon of substance or insight.
Damnably Badiou cites Book 9 of the Republic, and gets it wrong. (pp69) Socrates decries that though the perfect polis cannot be implemented here, perhaps in another city it may be possible. Badiou takes this as a signal that we don't have to look to other cities, the people of those places are here. "Foreigners are not a problem, they are an opportunity" - a sentiment with which I completely agree, but Badiou should consider that their wisdom was to leave home and come to us, and not the other way around.
I confess I don't think much of Badiou's "only one world", because it or any one idea is going to be bad for me or thee if carried to excess. Badiou has fallen into the trap of logical purity; from bad premises come bad conclusions. No matter where we are there should always be those other places to serve our other desires, opportunities to escape and start anew. His one world is not enough, especially if it turns out to be the wrong choice. There must always be alternate possibilities, if for no other reason than that we do not all share the the same inclinations or ideals.
February 25, 2018
The Left no longer scares anyone; up with the rich, down with the poor?
December 30, 2023
The meaning of Sarkozy is to dictate the meaning of our existence.
July 25, 2011
Polemischer Essay. Sarkozy steht für die aus der Furcht geborene unsolidarische Politik der Rechten: Ueberwachung, Disziplinierung, Ablehnung der Migranten, etc... Dagegen ist an der kommunistischen Hypothese festzuhalten, ohne die das menschliche Leben keinen Pfifferling wert ist.
"Wir müssen sagen: "Die Ausländer sind ein Glück!" Die Masse der fremden Arbeiter und ihrer Kinder zeugt in unseren alten müden Ländern für die Jugend der Welt, für ihre Ausdehnung, für ihre unendliche Verschiedenheit. Mit ihnen wird die künftige Politik erfunden. Ohne sie werden wir im nihilistischen Konsum und in der polizeilichen Ordnung versinken. Mögen die Fremden uns wenigstens beibringen, uns selbst fremd zu werden, uns aus uns hinaus zu projizieren, damit wir nicht in dieser langen okzidentalen und weissen Geschichte gefangen bleiben, die zu Ende geht und von der wir nichts mehr zu erwarten haben als Sterilität und Krieg. Begrüssen wir - gegen diese katastrophale, sicherheitsfixierte und nihilistische Erwartung - die Fremdheit des Morgens."
"Wir müssen sagen: "Die Ausländer sind ein Glück!" Die Masse der fremden Arbeiter und ihrer Kinder zeugt in unseren alten müden Ländern für die Jugend der Welt, für ihre Ausdehnung, für ihre unendliche Verschiedenheit. Mit ihnen wird die künftige Politik erfunden. Ohne sie werden wir im nihilistischen Konsum und in der polizeilichen Ordnung versinken. Mögen die Fremden uns wenigstens beibringen, uns selbst fremd zu werden, uns aus uns hinaus zu projizieren, damit wir nicht in dieser langen okzidentalen und weissen Geschichte gefangen bleiben, die zu Ende geht und von der wir nichts mehr zu erwarten haben als Sterilität und Krieg. Begrüssen wir - gegen diese katastrophale, sicherheitsfixierte und nihilistische Erwartung - die Fremdheit des Morgens."
July 31, 2014
I just love Badiou's concept of courage. I think I will be using his concept for a long while. It affirms a lot of things in my life right now. A brief preview of his communist hypothesis is also rewarding. I need to read his book dedicated on the topic.
December 11, 2014
Don't let the title fool you. The phenomenon of Sarkozy's election is introduced primarily as a frame for discussing the contemporary historical period with regard to what Badiou calls the "communist hypothesis". A very impassioned and inspiring read.
May 13, 2009
badbadbadiou.
August 2, 2011
Comme une pendule arrêtée, cela donne l'heure exacte deux fois par jour.
April 1, 2014
My first Badiou...Uffin' Great.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews