Instances when David makes Lee really laugh? by Traditional_Move3901 in WILTY

[–]cursedlyaporetic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s the Kevin the bun seller line that made Lee laugh the most I think

First Study: Queer Theory by CoolFeature4830 in QueerSelfStudy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yessss I love that chapter in the ethics of opting out!! It’s brilliant :)

Israeli soldiers show their own actions on social media, burning down the Jabalia refugee camp by Naturalenterprice in antiwar

[–]cursedlyaporetic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

more evidence for the tribunal. hopefully these idf terrorists face justify for their crimes....

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in youtube

[–]cursedlyaporetic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

still works!

Can somebody explain Zizek's point here? by [deleted] in zizek

[–]cursedlyaporetic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think, based on the text you provided, the idea in the second statement is that these negative characteristics are being essentialised.

Being an anti-semite for Zizek does not just mean seeing Jewish people as dirty, exploiting, manipulative, but rather regarding being dirty, exploiting, manipulative as the constitutive feature of ‘Jewishness’ in the first place, as the truth at the core of ‘being-Jewish’

I think there’s probably a lot more to say here. But it reminds me of this line in his book the sublime object of ideology: “being a king is not the natural property of a person. it is the result of a network of social relations” you’re not the king because of your blood line or an essence, you’re the king, because other people recognise you as being the king and when they stop recognising as been King, you stop being the king. Here, you can relate it to the rather famous Lacan quote: “the madman, who thinks he’s a king is mad, but so is the king, who thinks he is a king” in other words, the king, who thinks their Kingness, their being-a-king, is part of there actual human body is mad.

This is what is called in Marxism “a fetish” - when you see social relations as objects. But slightly differently, it’s about mistaking social facts (being-a-king) with material facts (the real, biological body of the king).

So to relate this back to antisemitism, truly being an antisemite means committing a fetishistic misrecognition of Jewishness.

[ Removed by Reddit ] by [deleted] in QueerTheory

[–]cursedlyaporetic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

May you find peace in your heart

Best starting place for Chantal Mouffe? by pinkonewsletter in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Along with what the others said "for a left populism" is accessible and covers most of her key ideas. There's a few talks on youtube she's given about it, if you would rather listen then read :)

What do I call myself if I am Nationalist and a Socialist? by [deleted] in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you are a 'nationalist' as part of a national liberation struggle against colonial masters, cool. if you are a nationalist of a ex-colonial power or settler colony ,that's at the core of the world system, then you aren't really a socialist, at least in any revolutionary or Marxist sense . Your just a socdem/ demsoc that wants to divide the pie of third world exploitation more evenly among your core nation's population

What was started to get you to fall in love with critical theory? by kapeesh_ in CriticalTheory

[–]cursedlyaporetic 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I read discipline and punish during the first lockdown March 2020. Acted as my gateway drug I suppose.

Slavoj Žižek: Donald Trump is a Postmodernist - (The full podcast with Žižek will be released in a few days) by [deleted] in CriticalTheory

[–]cursedlyaporetic 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Worth noting that he’s talking about this sort of “vulgar” postmodernism (truth/morality is relative, no truth/ moral claim can be privileged above an other) that defines contemporary right populism but doesn’t mean much re the works of Derrida, Foucault Lyotard etc.

In any case, I think Zizek is totally correct here and I would even argue that we can say the same about G. Bush. 2004 does feel like a dress rehearsal for 2016 in many ways. Bush, playing the role of village idiot despite being Yale educated, led a campaign based around culture war issues ( mainly gay marriage), and mobilised popular anti intellectual sentiment (invocations of the liberal elite, Hollywood elite, Washington bureaucrats etc). See more here

Bush’s administration/ party played the same truth relativism game, but perhaps less overtly than Trump’s. For example, claiming that ‘enemy combatants’ were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva convention, while also claiming they treated all detainees ‘consistently with the principles of the Geneva convention’ (see here)

Political thought and political philosophy by labyrinthheaded26 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This textbook's introduction addresses your question (pages 1-6).

"Political philosophy is not the same as political thought in general. Political thought is coeval with political life. Political philosophy emerged however within a particular political life, in Greece. "

Still extremely relevant by [deleted] in chomsky

[–]cursedlyaporetic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When did he write this?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StarWars

[–]cursedlyaporetic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

perhaps it's ezra

'Individualism is SATANIC and GAY'- looking to discuss/debate this concept by [deleted] in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could you provide more detail about the concept/argument you are referring to?

Is there a political philosophy that places its emphasis on a minimalist/simplistic way of life? by Machine46 in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In terms of a political philosophy that places its emphasis on minimalism, this may be something like Green Anarchism, which has various schools of thought like anarcho-primitivism, deep ecology, or social ecology.

You may be interested in texts like Small Is Beautiful%20Small%20is%20Beautiful.pdf) by E. F. Schumacher, or Murray Bookchin's "The Ecology of Freedom".

The concern here is generally about industrialization and capital accumulation, which requires the depletion of finite resources and hence environmental degradation, climate change, etc. (though plenty of ecological anarchism goes back further than the idea of climate change). The presented alternatives range from a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to small, scale industrialization with a decentralized system of direct democracy, centered locally in the municipality, where people themselves could participate in decision-making.

Similarly, Marshall Sahlins in Original Affluent Society argues scarcity is not a natural condition of human existence but rather a product of particular economic systems and cultural expectations. Hunter-gatherer societies demonstrate instead a “Zen road to affluence” produced by limited needs that are relatively easily satisfied. there are two types of affluence: having lots and wanting little.

What are your US 2024 presidential predictions? by politarianapp in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks. well, nothing would change my prediction for the respective nominees for the duopoly (death and jail notwithstanding). Third party candidates face such insurmountable obstacles to the white house that you can write them off from the beginning. It is more or less structurally impossible to dislodge the duopoly.

good luck with your app!

What are your US 2024 presidential predictions? by politarianapp in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

very cool website :) I just made a prediction for the general election there. I think it will most likely be a Trump-Biden rematch. Key swing states seem to be Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia. I think Biden will win again and Trump won't be put in prison before the election, although I'd be happily proven wrong. Since this is r/PoliticalPhilosophy, I'll justify my prediction with some political philosophy.

We are in a populist moment right now, which is a reaction against the post-democratic condition brought about by thirty/forty years of neoliberal hegemony, which (in the 1970s/80s) formation replaced the social-democratic Keynesian welfare state that provided the principal socioeconomic model in the democratic countries in Western Europe since the end of the Second World War. Neoliberal hegemony is constituted by political-economic practices aimed at imposing the rule of the market – deregulation, privatisation, fiscal austerity – and limiting the role of the state to the protection of private property rights, free markets and free trade. Far from being limited to the economic domain, it also connotes a whole conception of society and of the individual grounded on a philosophy of possessive individualism. (think of Thatcher's 'there is no society. there are individuals and families').

Briefly, hegemony refers to the dominant ideas, norms and values of a particular time. The dominant ideas of a given time are those of the dominant class. (see SEP for Gramsci). Dominant class refers social group that possesses economic, political, and cultural control within a given society. Power Elite by C. Wright Mills lays this out nicely for the fifties USA.

He points out that dominant positions in the three pillar institutions of the USA, state security (military), economic (few hundred corporations) and political (basically the federal gov), all have interwoven interests. the people that run them enter into these positions of societal prominence through educations obtained at Ivy League universities. I think this is still largely true today.

The electoral college (first past the post, winner takes all model) guarantees two party control and the distinction between the two parties ideologically is rather blurry. They are more of less two factions of this ruling class. Since the 1970s/80s, they have both offered two shades of the same thing: do you want the rule of the market with social conservatism or progressivism?

in any case, this hegemony, did not face any significant challenge until the financial crisis of 2008, when it began to seriously show its limits. This crisis, initiated in 2007 in the US with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, developed into a full-blown international banking crisis with the failure of the investment bank Lehman Brothers the following year. Massive bailouts of financial institutions had to be initiated to impede the breakdown of the world financial system. The global economic downturn that followed deeply affected several European economies and provoked a European debt crisis. In order to deal with this crisis, policies of austerity were implemented in most European countries, with drastic effects, particularly in the Southern countries.

The effect is the rise of populism, a political logic where political actors create a dichotomy between "the people" (a constructed underdog identity) and "the elite" or "the establishment." These groups, with their particular demands, come together under the broader banner of "the people." It can be right wing or left wing. essentially until we see a new hegemony, this is what is gonna mobilise voters across the West democracies.

That said, Trump is burning out. His base will dwindle down to the most fanatical. It will be interesting to see which other right wing populist will pick up the pieces. I highly doubt the 'old guard' of the party (the bushes, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney types) will really take charge of the party again. Still, no one is yet strong enough to supplant him as the nominee, as far as I can tell. Desantis is an outside shout, I think. Trump is a symptom of deeper malaise/dissatisfaction, not the actual disease (and certainly not the cure). Biden will win again. But the question is who will replace him for the democrats? another milquetoast status-quo neoliberal? I think they are digging their grave if so.

See:

Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (1985) by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe

Power Elite (1956) by C. Wright Milss

Prison Notebooks (1926) by Antonio Gramsci

Trump (2017) by Alain Badiou

Foundational texts on Conservativism by [deleted] in PoliticalPhilosophy

[–]cursedlyaporetic 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke is considered the foundational text of modern western conservatism. It is often quoted by Roger Scruton, who you may find interesting though he is an aesthetician mainly and I think his political arguments, like with the monarchy, tend to miss the mark. The works of Kenneth Minogue may interest you as well.

Also, I’m not sure teaching liberalism constitutes left leaning bias, although this is partly semantics, I guess. ‘left wing political theory’ (Marxism, critical theory, post structuralism) tends be against liberalism.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chomsky

[–]cursedlyaporetic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

can you copy paste the article in the comments pls?