Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Keston Sutherland


  1. Some possibly unhelpful thoughts and questions on my cataracted take of what this paper no doubt in reality is, offered for no discernible reason:

    6. Why would prising open the contradictions of capitalism change anything? Can't it exist perfectly well in its own contradictions, without the Atlas-like efforts of a single, 'heroic' poet/subject? Why would holding all the already-gaping wounds of capitalism open change anything in the near future? I mean, maybe it WILL, but...

    7. It strikes me as odd that the speaker immediately opposes his position to Katko's. Perhaps Sutherland knows/believes that solidarity is possible and necessary, but closing his ideas off from those of Katko seems a strange move. It simultaneously opens and shuts the dialogue, as if it is finished; there's Katko's position, here's mine. Or it implies that strengthening/concentrating on the subject is the more important, or frst, step. I realise this talk is slightly improvised, so perhaps I'm comma-fucking a bit, but I wonder if a more dynamic view could be taken, so that all of these papers could start to mutate and coalesce, rather than stand alone. You can probably tell I have more sympathy with Katko's position than that elucidated here, since I'm advocating a move towards a collectivity; so be it. But I'm also thinking of Steve Willey's question on the day about underlying unities. the point is: the subject is not separable from the collective, both Katko and Sutherland have to be synthesized, surely? Anyone who suggests you have to choose one over the other is trying to fuck with us (which is made of you, which is constituted by us, etc.

  2. Is this straight white male separatism. I'm all for it.