DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“A useful take on a misused word”
Well that source is definitely not a well-respected political science journal! I question its usefulness.
And the examples they give definitely show that there definitely is some kind of family resemblance between what Trump is doing and all-out fascism, even if you don’t want to call it that.
Gabriel Rockhill co-organises a Critical Theory Summer School in Paris each year. I’m not too sure what his politics are, you could find out through here:
https://criticaltheoryworkshop.com/On a similar theme, I have this book in my reading pile: ‘The Domestication of Critical Theory’. Michael J Thompson’s other articles and books I have read have been good:
‘The Domestication of Critical Theory’ by Michael J Thompson reviewed by Neal Harris
It’s not a question of capitalism *or* oligarchy. Oligarchic power – the power of the ultra wealthy – predates capitalism and exists within it.
What’s different today is that, unlike in previous decades, the oligarchs would get politicians to govern in their behalf now oligarchic interferrnce in politics is more naked and visible.
“Some critics of the way capitalism works just want to abolish oligarchs as the super-rich. They don’t want to abolish capitalism or the ordinary rich.”
This is true – but it gives us a great way into the debate. The problem with oligarchy is that it is a kind of arbitrary power. If people have a problem with this then we can explain how capitalism creates these types of power, but on a non-personal level.
I too am a simple member of the working class.
But I can also work out then when any writer of merit writes about “ideology” they are writing about more than simple brainwashing.
Liberal ideology was formulated by *philosophers* such as Hobbes, Locke, Bentham etc. I think TM needs to go back to the drawing board with his distinctions.
But whatever, I’ve said enough now.
Sadly that essay doesn’t reflect how most people that write in any depth about “ideology” use the term at all. It’s far too simplistic.
“All ideologies are INTERNALLY coherent, in that they all possess their own logic.”
I don’t think so. Think about the fusion of conservativism with free market “libertarianism”.
Religions and ideologies are different beasts. We are talking about conservatism versus liberalism. Not Christianity versus Islam.
In the descriptive sense of the word socialism is an ideology. There’s nothing wrong with saying that. Ideology critique isn’t a type of realtivism. Is about analysing which ideologies (or political theories) are internally coherent and fit with our current best understanding of the empirical sciences.
You have to apply the methods you use for analysing other people’s thought to your own.
“the real struggle isn’t against fascism, populism, or Trumpism — it’s against capitalism in all its forms”
There’s a word missing here, “just”. Of course we are against fascism, populism, and Trumpism. But it’s more than just that. We are also for socialism. And you can’t get that while fascism, populism, or Trumpism are significant ideological influence within the working class.
I don’t think the tick box approach to ideologies is particularly useful. Eg something must have x features before we call it “fascism”. Ideologies and conceptual competents that make them are fluid and interchangeable. Ideologies are more like “family resemblances”. Eg we all know what a game is, but it’s impossible to come up with a check list that would encompass all games.
“Lost in Ideology” is an excellent recent popular book on ideologies and ideology critique. I highly recommend it.
“There is no fascism, and there are no fascists; therefore, the struggle against fascism is only an illusion, as well as the struggle against communism is also an illusion, because it has never existed”
Nothing to see here. Move on. Do not interfere with the free speech of the masked men bundling people into the back of the van.
The empirical evidence is that people’s minds are changed gradually through shared community and activities, rather than by jumping straight into competitive debate or by challenging facts. That’s why people engaged in activities such as trade union activity are much less likely to have rascist views – they’re engaging in a common project with people from lots of different backgrounds/
https://iai.tv/articles/we-need-to-stop-talking-about-politics-auid-3375
https://sarahsteinlubrano.substack.com/p/what-to-do-instead-of-talking-aboutHopefully that will help lift the gloom.
I think the first step is to drop the moral superiority complex.
The second step is to realise that online / social media isn’t the best environment for changing views. It’s actually the worse place. (also a high percentage of comments on social media will be generated by bots and not human beings)
From the Lueer review: “Without transparent accounting, decisions about distribution are made by self-proclaimed representatives of the associated producers, such as experts, bureaucrats, and moralists.”
Obviously, this is a false dichotomy. There are more options than just between workers councils co-ordinating based on ‘labour time accounting’ or ‘self-proclaimed representatives’ dictating who gets what.
In capitalism the productivity of labour is increased for the purposes of increasing surplus value. In communism, the productivity of labour is increased for the purpose of increasing free time.
If “labour time accounting” (meaning the counting of actual concrete hours of labour) is the means by which individuals can draw from the stock of consumer goods (i.e if the longer hours you work means the more consumer products you can get) then where’s the incentive for this reduction of working time? And wouldn’t the tendency be for workers to inflate working hours and for productivity levels to drop?
Has Lueer even entertained this real possibility?
Any society needs to keep track of how long it takes to make things and how much labouring capacity it has in order to allocate this between different branches of production. The difference between socialism and capitalism is that in socialism this calculation takes place before the fact of production. And the amount of labour it takes to make something would just be one, amongst many, considerations not the sole guiding principle.
Unless I’ve missed something, Lueer seems wide off the mark.
