Abridged Version Available on Verso Blogs.
There is a debate about a translation of Alain Badiou’s Le Rouge et le Tricolore on the Verso Blog (New Left Review).
“Alain Badiou analyses the events of the Charlie Hebdo attack in their global and national contexts, making the case for the incompatibility of the red flag of communism with the Tricolore of French national identity.”
Badiou considered the attack on Charlie and the Kosher supermarket to be fascist.
He made these observations to back up the assertion.
Le Monde version.
D’abord, il est ciblé, et non pas aveugle, parce que sa motivation est idéologique, de caractère fascisant, ce qui veut dire strictement identitaire : nationale, raciale, communautaire, coutumière, religieuse… En la circonstance, les tueurs sont antisémites. Souvent le crime fasciste vise des publicistes, des journalistes, des intellectuels ou des écrivains que les tueurs estiment représentatifs du bord opposé.
Verso (Dave Broder translation),
A fascist-type crime, in my view, has three characteristics.
Firstly, it is not blind, but targeted: its motivation is an ideological one, of a fascistic character, which means a narrowly identitarian one: national, racial, communal, folk, religious… In this case, the murderers visibly targeted three identities that classical fascism often attacked: journalists considered to represent the enemy camp, policemen defending the hated parliamentary order, and Jews…
Read rest on Verso site.
Tendance Coatesy’s gloss on this section of the article (from Alain Badiou on Charlie Hebdo, Le Rouge et le Tricolore. A Critical Appraisal.) arguing why the slaughter was fascist, “It was first of all targeted, and not random, next the motivation was of a fascist nature, from an identity, in this case anti-Semitic.“
Why is the word “anti-Semitic” (as in les tueurs sont antisémites, the killers are antisemites) left out?
Apparently, the translation is not of the Le Monde article linked at the end, but supposedly some earlier, longer version, which is for some reason not available online.”
This is the Mediapart version:
D’abord, il est ciblé, et non pas aveugle, parce que sa motivation est idéologique, de caractère fascisant, ce qui veut dire : stupidement identitaire, nationale, raciale, communautaire, coutumière, religieuse… En la circonstance, les assassins avaient visiblement comme cibles trois identités souvent visées par le fascisme classique : les publicistes considérés comme du bord opposé, les policiers défendant l’ordre parlementaire haï, et les Juifs.
Certainly it does not mention anti-Semitism.
But as this is close to the crux of Badiou’s rhetoric (I was going to say argument, but the whole article is more a sustained exercise in rhetorical fireworks than a calmly laid out set of reasons).
Badiou has himself been accused of anti-Semitism (for calling Sarkozy – mother’s father, Jewish – ‘l’homme aux rats’).
It is therefore of more than causal importance.
Why, then, was the term absent in the Verso piece?
The audience for the Le Monde article is, on any definition, greater than that of Medipart’s.
So why not go for the stuff people have actually read in France?
Another comment, “It is interesting to note what the Le Monde chose to leave out”
To coin a phrase, if Le Monde ‘abridged’ then, here, in the case of this translation, we have Vice Verso.
Perhaps there is a wider background.
This is what New Left Review veteran Tariq Ali thought about the murders at Charlie (no mention of the Kosher supermarket at the Porte de Vinceness, or anti-Semitism at all).
How serious is Islamophobia in France and other European countries?
France is the worst in Europe and tries to mask it by proclaiming its secular values (sound familiar?), but these values don’t apply to Islam. In fact, French secularism means anything but Islam. And when satirical magazines taunt them, they react. It’s as simple as that.
It may well this is the message which New Left Review and Verso intends to broadcast, above any other.
There is plenty of self-indulgent cack on the Verso site to endorse this judgement on their ‘angle’ about Charlie Hebdo.
Item: Frédéric Lordon writes on the commemoration demonstrations for all those killed in the Islamist massacres,
Sunday’s marches above all saw the educated bourgeoisie contemplating its own strength and giving in to its self-enchantment. It’s not certain, however, that this makes for a ‘country’ or even a ‘people’, as we may well soon have good reason to remind ourselves.
One can see Ali rubbing his hands at many of Badiou’s own comments on Charlie Hebdo’s humour, such as these,
It may be amusing for the comfortably-off, but it is an indulgent ‘Western’ provocation against not only vast popular masses in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, but also a very large section of the working population in France itself
These are all points where lurid cultural racism fuses with blind hostility, crass ignorance and the fear that the vast mass of Africans or banlieue residents – the wretched of the earth – inspires in the hearts of our self-satisfied petty-bourgeois.
Badiou mentions ‘anti-Semitism’.
Well – it’s not important?