Thanks for the intellectual/political biography, it answered some things I was curious about myself. It also answers why, though I consider myself a fairly boringly conventional liberal (but not a centrist, I reject the very idea the term implies) I find a lot of common ground with the things you write. It seems obvious to me that techno-economic structural factors determine the range of possibilities for how societies can be organized, but also that finding your way to some desirable corner of that range is the work of politics (and never mind the fact that the techno-economic itself is the work of people advancing theoretical and practical knowledge through their efforts). That said, I would never call a society either rational or irrational; ultimately political and social orders are contingent, fragile accomplishments, achieved through luck as much as skill, and if they are durable, there is probably *some* logic to them that makes "sense" in terms of the characteristics of the society. That doesn't make them morally desirable, or even the best possible order from a purely practical point of view, so it's not cause for complacency. Still I can't see it as irrational or as contradictory; I'm simply too un-Hegelian.
It’s interesting to read your political biography. I understand your annoyance with American left, I feel the same way in Italy too. Now they have elected young lesbian woman. She is too smart and passionate. We will see how it goes. Italy has Catholic Church influence. Personally I believe center party could bring better competitiveness. I believe in socialism that functions well in the era of technology power. Human Jobs should be saved from AI and automation & robots. I know comunism well because I studied in Romania during Nicolae Ceaușescu era, so socialism failed in East Europe, But better left should be advanced.
I like your remarks about Engels' three forms of struggle. I am currently writing a master's thesis about the role of contemporary poetry in ecological and political thought. It is all too easy to cynically conclude that poetry (and poetry criticism) is ultimately impotent and pointless in the face of climate change and incipient fascism, given its marginalized place in current popular discourse. However, it somehow still seems important to me, and I've met at least three other people who agree! Joking aside, I believe very much in class struggle as well, and your above advice seems like good encouragement to people (like me) who don't have the right personality for traditional labor organizing/political activism but who can hopefully still make a meaningful contribution in a theoretical sense. Sometimes I remind myself of the old yarn about how the first Velvet Underground album only sold a handful of copies, but everyone who heard it went out and started a band. I think a good work of poetry can have a similar effect. Also, are you familiar with George Oppen? He started out as a poet, then decided poetry was too bourgeois and became a labor organizer for several decades, then came back to poetry and wrote some superb books. Fascinating person.
I do have a question, as well. I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and historically informed analysis of fascist tendencies in 21st century politics. I agree with most of what you say, and it seems crazy to me how much pushback your ideas get from prominent "liberal" pundits. My question: How do you deal with people in your life, on a personal level, who openly endorse Donald Trump and his policies/rhetoric/regime? I have several relatives and friends who are, or are at least leaning toward becoming, Trump supporters. I find it very difficult to maintain cordial relationships with people whose ideology I find shocking and appalling. These people absolutely harbor some casual racist/misogynist/homophobic/transphobic beliefs (obviously), but they are also not full blown Proud Boy/Groyper/Nazi types. If anything, they have been duped by right wing propaganda. Is it bad Marxist praxis to cut them out of my life? Would doing so make me the caricature of a Woke SJW Storm Trooper that right wing idiots constantly complain about? Do you tolerate personal relationships with relatives/acquaintances whom you would not tolerate in a theoretical or purely rhetorical/political space? Do you expend much or any energy trying to change their minds, or do you save your arguments for your published writing?
I must admit I am a little disappointed to see how similar my political autobiography is to yours--down to the interest in Marxism in the 6th grade then to the reconciliation between this and liberal democracy while also sometimes yearning to be apolitical while still agreeing substantially with Marx (possibly I am more skeptical how well these factors--while real--fully explain historical events). A recent goal is to be much less irked by everything contemporary I read which is political. I thought you were much further to my left and yet I never find you annoying and that this meant my attempt to chill out was on track. But I guess not--I probably just agreed with you already.
You don't fully say how you balance these not-wholly-consistent-perspectives. I believe this is a conundrum for many people who agree substantially with Marx about some of the causes for human events; those things we can only participate in collectively but cannot fully determine or shape but for whatever reason don't go the full mile.(There are many good reasons not to, I think.) So I don't expect you to solve it--it would be a book length effort for anyone--but your take on some of those questions would be interesting.
Thanks for the intellectual/political biography, it answered some things I was curious about myself. It also answers why, though I consider myself a fairly boringly conventional liberal (but not a centrist, I reject the very idea the term implies) I find a lot of common ground with the things you write. It seems obvious to me that techno-economic structural factors determine the range of possibilities for how societies can be organized, but also that finding your way to some desirable corner of that range is the work of politics (and never mind the fact that the techno-economic itself is the work of people advancing theoretical and practical knowledge through their efforts). That said, I would never call a society either rational or irrational; ultimately political and social orders are contingent, fragile accomplishments, achieved through luck as much as skill, and if they are durable, there is probably *some* logic to them that makes "sense" in terms of the characteristics of the society. That doesn't make them morally desirable, or even the best possible order from a purely practical point of view, so it's not cause for complacency. Still I can't see it as irrational or as contradictory; I'm simply too un-Hegelian.
It’s interesting to read your political biography. I understand your annoyance with American left, I feel the same way in Italy too. Now they have elected young lesbian woman. She is too smart and passionate. We will see how it goes. Italy has Catholic Church influence. Personally I believe center party could bring better competitiveness. I believe in socialism that functions well in the era of technology power. Human Jobs should be saved from AI and automation & robots. I know comunism well because I studied in Romania during Nicolae Ceaușescu era, so socialism failed in East Europe, But better left should be advanced.
John, do you think you’ll see the Joseph losey doc about labour’s victory in 1945? Playing this week at film forum
I like your remarks about Engels' three forms of struggle. I am currently writing a master's thesis about the role of contemporary poetry in ecological and political thought. It is all too easy to cynically conclude that poetry (and poetry criticism) is ultimately impotent and pointless in the face of climate change and incipient fascism, given its marginalized place in current popular discourse. However, it somehow still seems important to me, and I've met at least three other people who agree! Joking aside, I believe very much in class struggle as well, and your above advice seems like good encouragement to people (like me) who don't have the right personality for traditional labor organizing/political activism but who can hopefully still make a meaningful contribution in a theoretical sense. Sometimes I remind myself of the old yarn about how the first Velvet Underground album only sold a handful of copies, but everyone who heard it went out and started a band. I think a good work of poetry can have a similar effect. Also, are you familiar with George Oppen? He started out as a poet, then decided poetry was too bourgeois and became a labor organizer for several decades, then came back to poetry and wrote some superb books. Fascinating person.
I do have a question, as well. I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and historically informed analysis of fascist tendencies in 21st century politics. I agree with most of what you say, and it seems crazy to me how much pushback your ideas get from prominent "liberal" pundits. My question: How do you deal with people in your life, on a personal level, who openly endorse Donald Trump and his policies/rhetoric/regime? I have several relatives and friends who are, or are at least leaning toward becoming, Trump supporters. I find it very difficult to maintain cordial relationships with people whose ideology I find shocking and appalling. These people absolutely harbor some casual racist/misogynist/homophobic/transphobic beliefs (obviously), but they are also not full blown Proud Boy/Groyper/Nazi types. If anything, they have been duped by right wing propaganda. Is it bad Marxist praxis to cut them out of my life? Would doing so make me the caricature of a Woke SJW Storm Trooper that right wing idiots constantly complain about? Do you tolerate personal relationships with relatives/acquaintances whom you would not tolerate in a theoretical or purely rhetorical/political space? Do you expend much or any energy trying to change their minds, or do you save your arguments for your published writing?
Commitment without piety - rare as hen’s teeth, but always a blessed relief.
I must admit I am a little disappointed to see how similar my political autobiography is to yours--down to the interest in Marxism in the 6th grade then to the reconciliation between this and liberal democracy while also sometimes yearning to be apolitical while still agreeing substantially with Marx (possibly I am more skeptical how well these factors--while real--fully explain historical events). A recent goal is to be much less irked by everything contemporary I read which is political. I thought you were much further to my left and yet I never find you annoying and that this meant my attempt to chill out was on track. But I guess not--I probably just agreed with you already.
You don't fully say how you balance these not-wholly-consistent-perspectives. I believe this is a conundrum for many people who agree substantially with Marx about some of the causes for human events; those things we can only participate in collectively but cannot fully determine or shape but for whatever reason don't go the full mile.(There are many good reasons not to, I think.) So I don't expect you to solve it--it would be a book length effort for anyone--but your take on some of those questions would be interesting.
saw it last night. it was ok. also didn't realize it came out in 2012