My Stuff

https://umass-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rwolff_umass_edu/EkxJV79tnlBDol82i7bXs7gBAUHadkylrmLgWbXv2nYq_A?e=UcbbW0

Coming Soon:

The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."





Total Pageviews

Wednesday, February 8, 2023

SOTU

Unexpectedly, reluctantly, against my instincts and predilections, I am becoming a convert to Joe Biden. He was my last candidate in the 2020 primary and although I gave money to him and voted for him it was really only because the alternative was unthinkable. But there is no way to deny the facts. Biden is the most pro – union Democratic president since Roosevelt. He is the first Democratic president I have ever heard say that he wants men and women who do not have college degrees to get good middle-class jobs – not that he wants him to go to college but that he wants them to get good middle-class jobs despite not having college degrees and is prepared to put the weight of his presidency behind policies designed to accomplish that. When he said last night that this is not your father’s Democratic Party, it is your grandfather’s Democratic Party my heart swelled.

 

Now to be honest, I did not actually hear much of the speech as it was being delivered. On Sunday I was struck down by the most ferocious headache I have ever had in my life, pain that lasted when I went to the emergency room and afterward and did not ease up until Monday morning when I saw my doctor and got a shot that diminished the pain. Apparently I have developed something called “cluster headaches,” a condition that is painful, not dangerous, and transitory. One of its symptoms or signs is that my right eye is swollen almost shut, a fact that I find disorienting even when the pain is not present. I have great faith in my doctor, who assures me that I will get better and have no lasting consequences from this affliction, the causes of which, he says, are not known. So I heard some of the speech and watched some of it today before going off to have an MRI.

 

With the exception perhaps of Bernie Sanders and a handful of other Democrats, there is nobody in the party who talks like this and I love it. No, I have not forgotten what he did for Clarence Thomas and to Anita Hill, never mind all the other things in the past 40 years or more. But for whatever reason, he talks more like my grandfather, the socialist leader of Brooklyn in the first decades of the 20th century that he does like any of the hotshot young lefties who have sprung up in the party.

107 comments:

Howard said...

He also did a good job of broadcasting and even advertising his hefty pro regular guy plank- maybe people will give him proper credit and his due a second term.
He has fire but not a touch of charisma

Howard said...

How politically effective did you see Huckabee's rejoinder?
It looked like crude propaganda, but it might fool people anyhow

Marc Susselman said...

Huckabee's response was a ludicrous joke. s. wallerstein, is that too insulting or Gov. Huckabee?

Michael Llenos said...

President Biden reminds me of FDR in the few snippets of FDR's fireside chats that I've read or seen.

Some news guest compared him to Truman. But I think President Biden is more like FDR as a president. He looks more like FDR too. Although I may be wrong...

aaall said...

That he leveraged the heckling into a sort of PMQ should put paid to the senility nonsense. Then after a long speech, he stayed and schmoozed for a while. Meanwhile, Sinema impersonated clumped-up lemon drops.

Michael Llenos said...

Although I don't agree with some of her politics, I thought it was a nice dress. I think all this hate against her dress is just because a lot of people don't agree with her politically.

aaall said...

I'm not a constituent so no hate, merely mirth inducing.

https://nuts.com/images/rackcdn/ed910ae2d60f0d25bcb8-80550f96b5feb12604f4f720bfefb46d.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/5d107ba143bb44e4-Am3lWvRj-zoom.jpg

Her only real policy is a seven figure gig in her future. If I had worked and voted for her, I would feel ripped off.

s. wallerstein said...

Sorry about your headaches.

I miss my grandfather too, especially because being young and self-centered (as are most young people) while he was with us, I never got a chance to tell him what he meant to me.

However, is what your grandfather advocated in the first decades of the 20th century what we need today?

Wouldn't the "hotshot young lefties" in the Democratic Party have more idea of what policies are now relevant?

Jerry Fresia said...

So I took a look to find an actual Socialist Party platform from the last century. Here's one from 1912 that was presented at a national convention:

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-socialist-party-platform-socialist-party-national-convention-indianapolis-indiana/

"Oh well, sic transit gloria mundi." Joe has a ways to go.

David Palmeter said...


Jerry,

My problem with socialism (as opposed to welfare capitalism, a la the New Deal) is that I have no idea how it would or could work. You might have given it some thought. If so, can you tell me how artists like yourself would be compensated?

Philipp said...

Completely unrelated to this: Your quite frequent mentions of the show "The Big Bang Theory" left me wondering: Do you actually enjoy the show? Or is it purely a perfect object of ideology critique? Since the association I get, when watching it, leads me to the term or concept "laugh in a can"(i forgot who coined that term), which expresses quite well whats (intuitively, i agree) so weird about the laugh-tracks that are added to the "play" or whatever it may be.It seems so artificial, that, once your imagination (or actual edits found on youtube) allow you to remove said laugh-tracks (not sure if thats the correct name for it), the same clip induces a very unsettling and awkward feeling. This was initially noticed in reference to the series "friends", which Ive never watched. Its the cherry on top of the very bland, obvious and degenerate humour that requires no sophistication or creativity on the part of the viewer. Even the laughing is done by the machine (thereby laugh in a can, apathetic consumption). I found that to be interesting and was wondering what your actual take on The Big Bang Theory might be.

Barney Wolff said...

It's worth noting that the transition away from fossil fuels will create millions of jobs to get it done at all, and almost all of them don't require a 4-year degree.

I'm proud to bear the name of that socialist grandfather, despite being, in a small way, a capitalist.

Michael said...

David (and others), any thoughts on universal basic income?

Politics/political philosophy isn't my thing, but I like the idea - and even wonder if it'll be achievable in the somewhat distant future. (E.g., just based on some limited personal impressions, Andrew Yang seemed to have some appeal outside the left and somewhat in the mainstream.)

LFC said...

One thing that struck me as odd, to use a mild word here, about the State of the Union address was Biden's claim at the end, which he's prob said before, that the U.S. is "the only nation based on an idea" (as opposed to "ethnicity" or "geography"). But just to take one example, contemp. France can claim that it's "based on the idea[s]" of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man [sic] and the Citizen. I know Biden was staking out 'American exceptionalism' but I don't think this a v. well-grounded claim, historically speaking.

LFC said...

correction: don't think this *is* a v. well-grounded claim

Jerry Fresia said...

David,

That is a good question. My first point (speaking only of visual artists of whom I am one) would be that the current "art system" is a horrific mess, run by speculators, intentionally aimed to make the public look stupid and the rich look knowingly/sophisticated, and turning most studio artists into alienated assistants.

Michel Albert, along with others, has for years been developing a vision of a post capitalist society called a "participatory economy," the latest book to emerge from this imagining is "No Bosses." Go here for a preview:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/No_Bosses/rJVDEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

I have written a response to this here:

https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/why-artists-ought-to-endorse-parecon/

Any "imagining" of a better world, especially one as developed as Albert's is going to be problematic. But given the state of affairs with regard to the life chances of visual artists, ought to be considered if not endorsed.

My views on this derive a good deal from the work of Charles Taylor who has argued that Marx's critique of alienation leads somewhat to an "artist economy." Central to my thinking, again indebted to Taylor, is his work on what he calls the "expressive turn" or the romantic protest of enlightenment achievements. While this "expressivism" isn't the answer, it remains an important part of, probably centrally, to all people having access to a space in which they can be self-creative creatures. I think I have been able to survive as a painter because for 35 years I have worked independently of the art system and spent 10 years creating an outdoor exhibition group in San Francisco called Red Umbrellas, in which artist were self-directing, received a 100% of their sales and in some exhibitions were paid to exhibit. These artists were ordinary types, no fancy degrees, and what we created also helped beautify the parks of SF while affording the public easy, un-intimidating access to art and artists.

Go here to see a video on what Red Umbrella exhibitions looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6u_TiLTTxQ&t=7s&ab_channel=FRESIA

and here: to see my thoughts (less academic than above) on making a living as an artist:

https://www.fresia.com/political-economy/making-a-living-as-painter/

aaall said...

I believe most all (if not all) of the items in that 1912 platform have been attempted in various polities. Some worked and we mostly take them for granted. Some have turned out to be problematic, others would be clearly dangerous, others have failed spectacularly with terrible results. Why is the 1912 platform of a defunct political party some sort of aspirational marker?

Some may find #15 interesting:

"Abolition of all federal district courts and the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. State courts to have jurisdiction in all cases arising between citizens of the several states and foreign corporations. The election of all judges for short terms."

BTW, I don't see any concern for conservation or environmental issues.

Ahmed Fares said...

Paradoxically, and as regards unions, strong labor is weak labor and weak labor is strong labor. That's why Michigan converted from a union state to a right-to-work state. It wanted to make its workers stronger by making them weaker.

That's also why workers are voting with their feet by moving from union states to right-to-work states, in effect making themselves stronger by making themselves weaker. Check the chart in the article below and especially the first row. Note that for migration, the top ten inbound states are all right-to-work states while for the top ten outbound states, only two are right-to-work states, but Michigan doesn't really count because it only recently became a right-to-work state.

Top 10 Inbound Vs. Top 10 Outbound US States in 2021: How Do They Compare on a Variety of Economic, Tax, Business Climate, and Political Measures?

james wilson said...

I hesitate to voice criticism for I certainly have some sympathy for your response to Biden’s voicing of some old moral-political stances that have gone disregarded for some time—some might even consign them to the dustbin of history. But before I go further, let me also sympathise with your several ailments—getting old is OK until, suddenly it seems, it isn’t. (I’m still in that state of denial that it can ever happen to me, though I entered my 85th year a few days ago, though I see it happening to friends and family.)

But to the political aspect of your posting, regarding which I have at least two concerns.

First, while it’s encouraging to hear the fate of the left behind being acknowledged—and how recent is it since those of us who presumed to mention that fate as being responsible at least in part for such things as Trumpism, Brexit, and the rise of the right in France and elsewhere were attacked for doing so?—the real question is, will the words be a precursor of attempted action. I have a memory of Obama, when seeking election, standing and claiming he’d always stand with striking workers. Ouch! As a sub-part of this query/criticism, both Biden and you refer to the middle class. Even while I recognise that this is a way many Americans have of referring to working people, I’d note that in her conversation with the President on yesterday’s Newshour Judy Woodruff did use the term “working class.” Maybe to get where we want to go we should try to encourage that that terminolgy become standard?

But my second criticism is more broad ranging, for it seems to me our nostalgia may be blocking us from engaging with our present, deep-seated problems. Your reference to the “hotshot young lefties who have sprung up in the party” is a bit confusing, for I think you typed a “that” rather than a “than” after “20th century.” So if you were drawing an unfavourable generational comparison, it seems to me you have to distinguish between those seeking to pursue a socialist socio-economic agenda and the identarians, whom I regard as simply wanting some correct proportion of people like themselves, whatever they think themselves to be, to occupy positions of privilege in the socio-economic system as it exists.

If I’m interpreting you correctly here, in defence of today’s younger socialists, it seems to me your point of view doesn’t take account of the fact that today’s world isn’t quite what it was in your grandfather’s day or even what it was in our youth. I actually have a hard time dealing with that. But it does seem quite evident that, even if it’s still capitalism, it has undergone significant shifts which have been hugely consequential for the political frameworks in many places. Look to Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc.: Democratic Socialist parties, should they still exist, whose socialism and whose commitment to democracy are at least problematical. My point is, do the prevailing circumstances render our nostalgic memories of socialism at all meaningful? And if they were meaningful, if Biden’s social democratic hints were about to become something more substantial, would they result in anything more than his political destruction? The political destruction of Jeremy Corbyn and the movement centred upon him, who had the nerve to proclaim that they wanted a government that would act in behalf of the many not the few, stands as a warning that every weapon from the ideological to the financial would be brought to bear upon him. The question thus remains, how are the enormous resources of the established system to be challenged? Biden’s words may be a beginning. But how is he to be encouraged to go further and how is he to be protected even from those in his own party who will seek to disown him and his ‘new path.’

But let me close as I began by extending to you my political and health sympathies.

aaall said...

AF, baby boomers are retiring, cashing in moving south (e.g. Florida - The Villages) - who retires to the rust belt if one lives in a good climate? I doubt our host moved to NC for the reaction. That's why housing costs are becoming higher in Florida and folks who moved to certain unincorporated areas of Arizona are taking a sand bath.

Jerry Fresia said...

James Wilson,

Thank you for a splendid posting: rich with important distinctions, nicely crafted, and a critique whose strength lies in its gentleness.

Achim Kriechel (A.K.) said...


Dear James Wilson,

Your comment contains many astute observations that I thoroughly agree with. But the following passage I unfortunately do not understand.

"Look to Scandinavia, France, Germany, etc.: Democratic Socialist parties, should they still exist, whose socialism and whose commitment to democracy are at least problematical.“

Hätten Sie geschrieben:

"whose commitment to sozialism are at least problematical“

would still have made some sense, in memory of the Blair era in Great Britain and Schröder in Germany, and I think that applies a little bit later to François Hollande as well. It was also during this period that the term "working class" was exchanged for the term "precariat." Perhaps in order to open up the possibility for certain "socialists" to still be able to pronounce the term in a scientifically disguised form. But I digress.

Achim Kriechel (A.K.) said...

If you would have written

james wilson said...

Thanks for your very generous comment, Jerry.

Achim, when I wrote “whose socialism and whose commitment to democracy are at least problematical,” I intended to convey that, as I at least view them (and I think I’m not alone in this) Democratic Socialist parties are no longer socialist, except perhaps in name; they’re, if anything, meritocratic (and I’m keeping in mind that when Michael Young introduced that term he did so with critical intent). So I don’t view them as any longer, except in marginalised parts of their membership, harbouring any commitment to socialism. There’s therefore no commitment that could even be problematical.

I do, however, see these parties as claiming that they’re committed to democracy—who does not claim this nowadays? Hence, here it is their supposed commitment that I think problematical, not only from the way they conduct their internal operations (which is where my comments on the British Labour Party come to bear) but also with respect to their policy goals which are by and large, so far as I can tell, not oriented towards making the societies they govern or seek to govern more democratic. In practice, despite whatever democratic pretensions they may voice, they are actually quite comfortable going along with the goals of neoliberal capitalism (as some of us would term it).

And so back to our host’s hopes for Biden. Will Biden follow through on his words which at least suggest that he envisages a society—and a political party—that would not be subject to the sorts of criticisms I’ve just voiced? And should he try to follow through on his words, will he be allowed to do so?

s. wallerstein said...

It was a political speech.

Politicians say all kinds of things in their speeches and promise all kinds of thing that know they have no intention of delivering and maybe are unable to deliver.

Biden is 80 years old and does not seem like someone who at that age will undergo a sudden conversion towards an anti-liberal agenda, which he never has stood for until now.

Some young hotshot speech writer wrote the thing according to the ideas of a group of young hotshot political strategists, plotting out Biden's strategy for the 2024 presidential election.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, mentioned in the originial post above, has a political curriculum dating back to the 60's of socialist or at least anti-neoliberal activism and thus, one tends to see him as sincere in his anti-neoliberal convictions.

aaall said...

"Some young hotshot speech writer wrote the thing according to the ideas of a group of young hotshot political strategists, plotting out Biden's strategy for the 2024 presidential election."

Or not. Biden's performance at the SOTU shows a level of engagement that contradicts that assertion. By all accounts Biden engages and Obama, Bush, and Clinton all engaged with their speechwriters. It was clear when Trump was just reciting. While everyone in the White House save Biden is "young" to we geezers, none are "young" in the "hotshot" sense.

What does "follow through" even mean in the context of the U.S. Constitution and the current political situation including our reactionary Article Three courts? Biden is unlikely to accomplish much of anything in the next two years unless the Dems win enough special elections soon enough to change the House and even then Biden/Schumer will still have to navigate the Senate. The Second Gilded Age is as tenacious as the first one.

Unlike some of his former staffers, Bernie is a good politician who been indispensable in moving our politics but it should be noted that Pelosi saved Social Security.







Danny said...

I didn't know you could just get a 'primary' headache. I read between the lines -- your doctor does not know exactly what causes it. I tried looking this up, to find that there are over 300 types of headache, about 90 percent of which have no known cause.

Danny said...

LFC said...
'One thing that struck me as odd, to use a mild word here, about the State of the Union address was Biden's claim at the end, which he's prob said before, that the U.S. is "the only nation based on an idea" (as opposed to "ethnicity" or "geography").'

Boilerplate -- America is the only country founded on an idea! And it was the most radical idea of its era! The belief that citizens could govern themselves! It was called The American Experiment! Because there was no reason to believe it would work! This sort of thing might seem more relevant in a State of the Union, also maybe when Trump had no truck with the paean to America as a constitutional nation. These are not arguments of liberalism or conservatism.

Danny said...

Ahmed Fares said...
'Paradoxically, and as regards unions, strong labor is weak labor and weak labor is strong labor.'

A wider principle is about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs and thus, a low tax is a lucrative tax, a weak left wing is a strong left wing (in that communism incites fascism, or maybe the Democratic party gets attacked for its left wing, when its left wing is prominent).

By the way I'm a tad skeptical of the notoin that workers without four-year college degrees have lost ground. Elon Musk says college is 'for fun' and not learning. I'm skeptical of Elong Musk too, but the belief in mandatory college has something to do with how college tuition and fees are up 1,200%, Maybe? (this since 1980).

s. wallerstein said...

aaall,

My personal impression of Biden is that he's empty inside. That is, he sells a product, in this case, labor unions, but he could be selling real estate or insurance.

He's good at it. He's ambitious and he would have been successful whatever he sold, be it real estate, insurance, or labor unions.

Bernie, on the other hand, strikes me as someone with convictions that go all the way down and probably dictate not only his political discourse for public consumption, but also his tastes in film, his friendships, his reading, his daily life. He's not dogmatic, but he's all of one piece. Bernie's a complex person, and I'm not claiming he's totally consistent, which is a bit of a monstruosity in a human being, but there's a there there.

Now Biden, inspite of the fact that there's no there there, could be very successful in
carrying out those policies he advocates. I'm not at all sure that authenticity pays in electoral politics in a society dominated by the mass media and social media.

However, I admire Bernie, I like him, he's the first national political figure in the U.S. whom I feel comfortable with during my life-time. He seems like a guy I could have hung out with when I was in college.

I admit that I can't stand Biden. Never could stand guys like him. Obviously better than the Republicans. I wish him well, but he is detestable as a human type.

LFC said...

Danny @5:21 p.m.

Yes, it is boilerplate, so my word "odd" was out of place from that standpoint. But my point was that it's boilerplate that rests on a shaky historical foundation. Some pieces of boilerplate are better grounded than others.

Danny said...

'my point was that it's boilerplate that rests on a shaky historical foundation'

American exceptionalism, actually a term in social science. Whether America has a unique mission to transform the planet and its inhabitants is a question that is not far away from this trite/hackneyed stuff, though. Still, the president doesn't do his State of the Union speech and belabor long decades of decline for the United States, external relations have often been volatile and have frequently seemed contradictory or even hypocritical, ceaseless veering back and forth. It would be funny, if the speech went something like 'For a while, the nation will act in a mainly self-interested way, until it feels too much like an ordinary, petty, self-interested state', and so forth.

'I admit that I can't stand Biden. Never could stand guys like him.'

Of course he isn't Bernie Sanders. I predicted early, that Biden would get the nomination, which means I also expected Sanders would vastly underperform. If you remember back when Sanders entered the 2020 Democratic primary race with a wind at his back, set the tone for the policy conversation in the race. I recall how he argued that liberal voters, new voters, and young voters would dominate the political landscape. I'm in my fifties, I'm sure that's relevant. Yet, Mr. Sanders’s underperformance is deeper than that. I wonder if the party became more liberal.

Anyways, I sort of take Biden for the only honest man in Washington. Him accidentally telling the truth is my biggest issue w/him.

Achim Kriechel (A.K.) said...

@ James Wilson,

thank you for your response. I see a great deal of agreement in our perspectives. But allow me to play the advocatus diavoli for once. I hope I succeed to some extent, especially because I want to be brief.

The serious question really is: Why do socialist or social democratic governments fail so regularly and in the short term, once against reality, and at the same time against their own claims?

Let us come back to Prof. Wolff's grandfather, and the differences that undoubtedly arise when we compare "his" capitalism with what we see today.
So the first question would be, how did people in 1923 look at this entity we still call "capitalism"? Very briefly: These were revolutionary times with a very strong conviction that a radical, sweeping change in the entire political system could turn the order of all national societies upside down. Unfortunately, this revolutionary impulse turned in Europe, in favor of fascist madness, and in Stalin's gulags in the Soviet Union.

In 2023, the volume of derivatives, as a parameter of what is called "financial capitalism", is over 350 trillion dollars. This capital exceeds the budgets of all national states worldwide. It is the measure by which capitalism bets on its own future. It drives science and technology as never before, and while in 1969 "the Americans" proudly announced landing on the moon - "a great step for mankind" - in 2023 Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are flying around in space.

My question is: don't we regularly overwhelm well-meaning, socialist-calling politicians when they leave port with their ship? I don't know. It could be that in the near future nature will demand steps from us that could be more revolutionary than what our grandfathers could have imagined.

Marc Susselman said...

s. wallerstein,

“I admit that I can't stand Biden. Never could stand guys like him. Obviously better than the Republicans. I wish him well, but he is detestable as a human type.”

You and I have had our differences, and you have written a lot of things that irritate me, and vice versa, but this is the crème de la crème of your smug, sanctimonious statements. You lecture me about using “insulting” language addressed to other commenters on this blog, but it is perfectly OK for you to judge President Biden as “detestable as a human type.” Because he does not pass your litmus test for a radical politician? Insulting language is acceptable as long as it comes from you about someone who does not comment on this blog? You apparently have the supernatural ability to see into Biden’s soul and determine the he is a shell of a human being that “there is not there there.” His affectionate tributes to his father about hard work and human values are, according to you, the pablum of a political hypocrite. He has done nothing to deserve your respect – or, according to you, the respect of any other decent human being – except succeed in getting the Violence Against Women Act passed and nominated the first female African-American Supreme Court Justice, and continued to work through the tragic losses of a wife, a daughter and a son. What achievements have you had in your life that compare to his and place you above being “detestable as a human type”?

s. wallerstein said...

There's a cliche or stock comment that you'll find in the mainstream political discourse and in all the mainstream media, about how the mainstream political center is tolerant and open-minded, while the far left is intolerant, much like the far right: "the extremes meet," they tell us.

In my life experience (and I've never hung around Nazis), no one is more intolerant than the mainstream political center.

The far left, probably because they're number two or number three or number four, try harder and do not accept others to bow down to their opinions as the mainstream does.

Every time I've been "cancelled" or thrown out of some place or situation or group, it's been due to someone with mainstream views like those of Marc. And I'm equally contrarian with the left, but they tend to be more accepting.

I've tried to establish a civil relationship with Marc, but it's impossible. He's appointed himself as defender of the mainstream liberal faith. There will be no more
small gestures of good will on my part towards him.



s. wallerstein said...

my error:

I wrote "accept others" above when I meant "expect others".

Marc Susselman said...

s. wallerstein,

“There will be no more small gestures of good will on my part towards him.”

I call you out for insulting the President of the United States by asserting that he is “a detestable” human being because his politics do not accord with yours, and I am thereby insulting you??? You are a smug, self-righteous, ego-centric hypocrite, and that is meant as an insult.

Achim Kriechel (A.K.) said...

while I agree with Marc on the substance of the comment about Joe Biden, and while I would concede to s.w. that he simply doesn't like certain people, it would be much more appropriate for the comments and commenters on Prof. Wolff's blog if we largely refrained from arguments at hominem. I'm not sure, but I think many would favor that refrain.

s. wallerstein said...

A.K.

Refraining from arguments ad hominem, would that mean we no longer can insult Trump, Tucker Carlson and Putin?

Howie said...

Just an opinion by a perhaps outside obesrver
Ad hominem attacks are legitimate when the target's position is based on a deeply held value or ideological position.
I think S. Wallerstein feels like a "good" person in an almost religious sense in his, yes ad hominem attack on President Biden.
If you call attention to yourself by emphasizing the goodness of your position, then you're fair game for ad hominems
I'd say that like many leftists S. Wallerstein can't accept reality and confuses struggle with hating reality.
I'd say that Marc can't accept that not everyone is as smart and logical as he is.
S Wallerstein, your cry of ad hominem is a red herring, however admirable your idealism maye be

s. wallerstein said...

Howie,

I could accuse you of using ad hominem attacks against me ("can't accept reality and confuses struggle with hating reality").

Howie said...

I like you S Wallerstien, I'm trying to help you understand yourself as I was once a little like you
However, you're not answering my question, you're just accusing me of hypocrisy
So we're both a little hypocritical- it's better than evil
Why do you villainize Biden just because he's not Bernie Sanders
I'd admit you've been gentlemanly in your exchanges with Marc, still your political convictions are held with an almost religious vigor; why? You can still fight the battle without being "An angry young man" of the Billy Joel song

s. wallerstein said...

Howie,

You're a psychologist?

I'm not villainizing Biden. I just detest him. I can detest someone without villainizing them.

I'm quite capable of separating my personal dislikes from my ethical judgments.

If you're now going to ask me why I detest Biden , that has to do with my biography and psychological history, which I'm not going to explain publicly.

I like you too.

Howie said...

You're making progress S. Wallerstein, but you're still rationalizing.
To me it looks like you're just prejudiced against people, especially public figures, especially politicians, who are insufficiently socialist.
You are hating on Biden, if you were less prejudiced you'd recognize the good he's done for America and the world.
I'm not a psychologist but I took a class in Shakespeare from a genius.
I'm still figuring out which character you most resemble, maybe Christopher Sly

s. wallerstein said...

Howie,

Please read what I said yesterday at 6:45 PM above.

I said that it may be that in today's society dominated by the mass media and social media someone like Biden may do some good.

I also said that one reason I like Bernie is that he reminds me of the type of guy I used to hang out in college with, even in high school. I didn't hang out with guys like Bernie because they were socialists, but I became a socialist because I hung out with guys like Bernie.

What I didn't say is that one of the chief reasons I detest Biden is because I went to high school with guys like him and they detested me and I detested them. It had nothing to with politics.

Thanks for the amateur therapy.

james wilson said...

Thanks for your response and questions, Achim (@ 4:20 AM). I’m not sure I can provide an adequate response to the latter.

Maybe the so-called progressive point of view is always a minority and always a riven one? The counter-society formed by the German Social Democrats was, I believe, famous. But in that case too, just how many of the German workers participated in the institutions and activities of that socio-political movement? (I hope I’ve got my history right.) And maybe it’s always a beleaguered one? Though in some cases it may take those doing the beleaguering some time to get organised and to put down what they don’t like.

But back to your specific questions. As to 1923, as you intimate, the huge and bitter division between the Communists and the Social Democrats was underway. There was surely therefore no one way of looking at capitalism and what to try to do about it. I’m not sure what the situation was in Brooklyn at that time; maybe Prof. Wolff can enlighten us as to whether conflicts were also raging there among the several parts of the left.

With respect to your last question, respecting the responses to well-meaning socialist politicians, I guess my own response is to say that well-meaningness is not necessarily enough. Here I’ll point to my own experience as a beneficiary of sorts of well-meaningness. But for the educational policies of the post WW Two British Labour government I’d have had to leave school at 15 and find a job, likely a job in a factory. (As a by-note, the philosopher Raymond Geuss, sometimes mentioned on this blog, and also from a working-class background, has a new book out, “Work,” where he discusses, among other things his time working in a steel mill.) Anyway, I was saved from that fate by the British government of the day. But were I able to go back in time and advise those socialist politicians, whom I still respect, I would urge them to consider very seriously to try to tackle not just the opening up of the higher education system but the content of what was taught. For I think in many respects many of those like me found themselves educated into pursuing self advantage above all else — we deserved, didn’t we, whatever privileges we later acquired because we were smarter and we’d worked so hard to learn something. To put it very harshly, there is, it seems to me, a case to be made, that that government’s basically meritocratic educational policies contributed in part at least to the later emergence of Thatcherism. Of course, I’m overlooking here the constraints that government operated under, even from within their own ranks and the ranks of their supporters. But still my point is that criticism of its policies were appropriate.

In sum, then, however well-meaning a socialist politician may be they ought to be subject to the criticisms that could and should be forthcoming from those — the collective those — they supposedly represent. They don’t represent us (in the liberal meaning of political representation), they are, or ought to be an expression of our collective, on-going attempt to grapple with what is happening to us.

And just to undercut some of what I’ve just said, I feel compelled to acknowledge that there is no collective us around any more, especially here in the US, and there are only remnants of it in the UK (though the on-going strikes and the support the strikers are receiving gives me some hope).

Best wishes.

LFC said...

Danny @ Feb. 11, 1:16 a.m.

"American exceptionalism, actually a term in social science"

I'm aware of that, since I am by training a (particular kind of) social scientist (spent almost 10 years in grad school getting a Ph.D.). Rather than being obnoxious, however, which I am, alas, capable of doing, let me try to explain myself better.

When a President says, for instance, that the U.S. mission is to "make the world safe for democracy," that is an expression of American exceptionalism, but it's not primarily an historical claim. Its validity, if one can use that word, depends more on a quasi-religious or at least ideological impulse than on a discrete claim (implicit or otherwise) about historical fact.

By contrast, when a President says, as Biden did, that the U.S. is "the only nation founded on an idea," that is an expression of American exceptionalism, yes, but it's also an historical claim, implying very directly that no other nation was founded "on an idea." Not that the U.S. was founded on better ideas, but that the U.S. is the only nation founded on an idea, period. That's the claim.

But the U.S. was founded in an era when a set of ideas about reason, progress, natural rights (of certain people) and "popular sovereignty" (ditto) were swirling around various places in the "transnational Enlightenment." Since the Enlightenment was transnational and since the French republic was obviously in some sense founded "on an idea" or set of ideas, the claim that the U.S. is the only nation founded on an idea is not simply American-exceptionalist boilerplate; it is stupid (or, if you prefer, demonstrably false) American-exceptionalist boilerplate.

aaall said...

"...I became a socialist because I hung out with guys like Bernie."

Except Bernie is a New Dealish social democrat so why aren't you that? I don't get mixing the personal and the political.

Both Bernie and Biden have been in politics for most of their lives. Bernie worked his way up from unsuccessful campaigns to Mayor, Representative, and now Senator/consequential presidential candidate. Joe lucked out in his first race. Vermont is somewhat quirky and allows a latitude that a mid-Atlantic state like Delaware never would.

Capitalism/neoliberalism, communism, fascism, socialism, and theocracy have failed (often spectacularly) whenever attempted, yet we seem unable to quit them. Go figure.

BTW, creating a sense of affinity is the usually the first step in a con. This is especially the case when money and power are involved.

LFC, per the last thread, it seems the College Board dissembled and they had had regular prior contact with folks from DeSantistan.

s. wallerstein said...

aaall,

The Argentinian philosopher Dario Sztajnszrajber says that some days he's a socialist, some days he's a social democrat.

I'm like that too. However, I'll always back Bernie because he's an old friend (metaphorically).

You're right: I made a mistake to mix the personal and the politics. I imagined that I was among friends here and no, I realize that I'm not.

I'll not make the same mistake again.

LFC said...

s.w.

You are among friends here, just somewhat contentious friends.

Ahmed Fares said...

Howie said,

I'm not a psychologist but I took a class in Shakespeare from a genius.
I'm still figuring out which character you most resemble, maybe Christopher Sly.


Christopher Sly is a reference to me insofar as I am a Sufi. Drunkenness is a common theme in Sufism as it refers to the intoxication that accompanies the death of the ego, which is the goal of Sufism. You might find this interesting:

The Sufi Basis of The Taming of The Shrew

Most Baconians are familiar with the symbolism of Shake-speare as Pallas Athena the Spear Shaker, but the name has another, more concealed meaning. In Syria, where the cult originated, Kidhr is equated with St. George (who is the patron saint of England).
According to Idries Shah, The Order of The Garter in England (whose patron saint is St. George) derived from the Sufi Khidr Order. Sufis have sometimes rendered Shakespeare in perfectly correct and acceptable Persian as Sheikh-Peer, "The Ancient Sage." William Shakespeare, and Miguel Cervantes, both of whom Bacon utilized as his masks, are recorded as dying on the birthday of St. George. In the Anatomy of Melancholy, when referring to "that omniscious, only wise fraternity of the Rosie Cross" Bacon names their head as "Elias Artifex, their Theophrastian master" and then describes him as "the renewer of all arts and sciences, reformer of the world, and now living." Since, the Great Instauration, (the renewal of all arts and sciences), was Bacon's work, the implication is that Bacon himself was head of the Rosicrucian Fraternity, and that Bacon was Elias who was Kidhr, The Green One, the supernatural figure who is the hidden guide, and patron of the Sufi Orders.


The "Green One" appears in his latest reincarnation as Yoda in Star Wars, a story about spiritual alchemy. Luke Skywalker represents the lead, i.e., the spiritual neophyte, Obi-Wan Kenobi represents the gold, i.e., the spiritual adept, and Yoda is the Philosopher's Stone, aka, the Red Sulfur, which effects the alchemical transmutation.

The other function of the Philosopher's Stone is that it is the elixir of immortality. In Star Wars, this is alluded to by Yoda's age. To wit:

"For 800 years, have I trained Jedi." —Yoda

aaall said...

s.w., unless one is suicidal, voting based on affinity is system dependent. In another life I sat on boards and listened to folks who needed to "feel good about their vote" and "the lesser evil is still evil." etc. That is how we got Bush and Bush is how we got Trump.

I like Bernie but is a FPTP presidential system merely liking as a path is an unaffordable luxury.

I don't get your Argentinian philosopher. Politics isn't merely sentiment; it actually effects peoples' lives.

s. wallerstein said...

aaall,

For sure, politics actually affects people's lives and there are good arguments in favor of socialism and good arguments in favor of social democracy.

It seems to me that a philosopher or any thinking person who is not directly involved in making political decisions on a day to day basis is justified in arguing in favor of one and then another in his or her head, without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Obviously, a politician who has to put policies into practice on a day to day basis has to opt for one or another. But neither I or Dario Sztajnszrajber are politicians.

In any case, almost all of us end up voting for the lesser evil on election day. If you follow my comments here, you understand that I have always supported Professor Wolff's position, that of supporting Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

So you're arguing with someone else, not with me, although it does seem that you do want to pick a fight. Find someone else please.

Jerry Fresia said...

Reading through the comments I too, like S.W. detest Biden and it is nothing personal, it's all about 40 years of neoliberal policies and like Obama, putting the needs of Wall St/defense industry above Main St. I think what we detest is not having an opposition party.

What would an opposition SOTU address look like? Something more like this (not the greatest, but geez, can we have some opposition-anti-capitalism please):

https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/10/joe-bidens-state-of-the-union-address-a-marxist-response/

Howie said...

S. Wallerstein

The therapy is amateur in that it is free.
I do know from the analysis of my teenage years that we hate peeple for a reason.
I mean he is not evil like Trump. You can't hate people just becasue they have different opinions than you, plus you don't know Biden, you just know his persona,
I mean why would youe waste your negative emotions on somebody you don't know?
Just for the sport of it?
If I'm an amateur therapist then you're an amateur patient

Anonymous said...

This seems relevant to some of the disagreements here and on previous threads. It's long, but I found it informative on the Middle East as well as on the general question of attempts at political change and the reactions to it:

https://salvage.zone/the-actuality-of-counter-revolution/

Howie said...

So Jerry

I've heard about Neo-Liberalism. You sound like an expert in it.
I remember the five-minute hate from 1984.
I think you're just blaming all the world's current problems on Neo-Liberalism.
Is it like Neo-Fascism or like Communism?
Why don't you put it in terms that an amateur psychologist like me would understand since you're such an authority as you'd have to be.
You're an artist so you probably know a lot about economics and things like that.
But it's something you hate so there must be something to your hate. Hate never lies
And of course like the Protestants said justification by hate.
What's wrong with good old fashioned Liberalism (new and improved)?
Of course you're actually doing something about Neo-Liberalism by commenting on this blog and being a revolutionary artist

LFC said...

Howie,

fyi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism


probably just a place to start. I only read the opening graph, but it seems to be reasonably accurate.

Jerry Fresia said...

Hi Howie,

Sorry for using terms that are cryptic and don't mean anything to some people. It's just shorthand.

I'll do my best to be brief and explain. This is how I see it: there are two sources of power that I tend to focus on. One is public or power that resides in the government. One is private or power that resides in the economy/corporations.

Professor Wolf has argued that capitalism requires the exploitation of workers. If and when the government (political power) protects workers, to site one example, it will regulate and check the power of private actors or let's say corporations. This was done most effectively, some believe, under FDR. But corporate leaders resist being constrained by government regulation. Their power is diminished as is their wealth.

During the early 70s, both parties began to reduce the power of government to check private power (deregulation), reduce the size of government primarily through privatizing functions that used to be the responsibility of government such as education, prisons, even war making. This is neoliberalism. Neoliberalism, sometimes called austerity, took hold substantially under Reagan but was also pushed forward by Bush I and II, Clinton, Obama, and Trump. It appears that neoliberalism in the US and elsewhere has lost its credibility given the massive inequality that followed in its wake, not to mention the ravaging of the environment. Biden's policies are less neoliberal, I believe, than his immediate predecessors. While less enthusiastically endorsed, neoliberal policies like cutting taxes on the rich still very much obtain.

I don't know where this "hate" attribution comes from. I don't think my views vary much from Chomsky's, MLK, Cornel West, James Baldwin, or Marx for that matter. I'm a big fan of Marx's theory of alienation, particularly as a painter (and because of my family background), and consequently I am opposed to corporate or entrepreneurial types bossing/exploiting workers and stripping them of their dignity for material gain. I'm also very much opposed to what I perceive as the maintenance of an American empire by means of relentless and wanton killing and intervention in countries across the globe.

I hope this helps.

Marc Susselman said...

I take issue with Jerry Fresia’s claim that neoliberalism was adopted and advanced with the equal support and enthusiasm of the Democratic Party. It is clear that the concept of neoliberalism originated with conservatives on the international front, and then was advanced by the Republican Party, sparked by Justice Lewis Powell’s 1971 secret memorandum to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to counter what he regarded as the unhealthy promotion of liberal ideas on college campuses in the U.S. It was adopted by Reagan and substantially advanced by his fight with, and termination of, the air traffic controllers. Reagan was popular not just with conservatives, but with moderate American voters who did not appreciate the threat which Reagan’s policies present to blue color workers and the middle class. In order to inhibit the popularization of Reagan’s in the American electorate, and in order to get elected, Carter and Clinton supported policies which were intended to address the Republican criticisms of the U.S. becoming a welfare state, they did so in order to stanch the blood which the Republicans were inflicting on the liberal policies of FDR. I blame this on the naivete and ignorance of the American electorate, not on the Democratic Party, per se. Obama’s misguided efforts to reach a more moderate accord with the Republicans were rebuffed by them. Even in the Wikipedia article which LFC has referenced, it states: “The neoliberalism of the Clinton administration differs from that of Reagan as the Clinton administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues. Writing in New York, journalist Jonathan Chait disputed accusations that the Democratic Party had been hijacked by neoliberals, saying that its policies have largely stayed the same sine the New Deal. Instead, Chait suggested these accusations arose from arguments that presented a false dichotomy between free-market economies and socialism, ignoring mixed economies.”

This past week we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, which gave American workers the right to take time off from work in order to attend to the medical needs of their families without being fired. The FMLA, after years of fighting for it by Sen. Dodd, was finally enacted by the Clinton administration. Neoliberalism was the child of the Republican Party, and was only adopted with tepid support by the Democrats in self-defense.

Jerry Fresia said...

Marc - I have a slightly different take:

Scholars, as far as I can tell, have linked neoliberalism to F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman to a period early in the 20th century. I would make the case that it is the default philosophy of government that emerged from the Founding.

Policy wise, neoliberalism emerged under Carter (https://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/lind_reaganism_carter/) and was given full throttle under Reagan. And has marked the policy arc under both parties sense.

I would also frame Powell's lament differently. Much as with the Trilateralist within the Carter administration (and one could go back to the Founding again), Powell (on the right) and Samuel Huntington (on the liberal side of "responsible" policy positions) were aghast at the increased political activism of normally "subservient" sectors of the population in the 60s (termed "state overload" by Huntington, hence the Trilateral analysis found in its publication "The Crisis of Democracy" (democracy exists only when the vast majority of citizens don't participate, they argued) - that's the liberal perspective as Chomsky likes to remind us.

Political parties are coalitions of elites representing sectors of capital that seek to gain control of the federal government in order to make various private interests the public interests. So throughout US history, party platforms differed substantially (wage mode of production vs slave mode - early 19th century; northeast international capital with unionized labor vs southwest national capital with non-unionized labor - post WWII, for example). Therefore, the respective bases differed as did attendant party platforms. By the 21st century, finance capital was represented by both parties, and the Democratic base, so long rooted in FDR's coalition, withered into identity politics. And on that level the Democrats are more progressive, but as with Clinton and Obama, the emphasize on the debt, deregulation, privatization, trade, and militarism to support the empire (read the realities of capital) reflected an intense neoliberalism. The US could now have an African American or a woman or a homosexual protect Wall St at the expense of Main St, bomb seven countries, restrict immigration, privatize as much as possible including SS, and expand oil exploration in the face of climate catastrophe as earnestly as Republicans. This is why the Democrats, now champions of identity politics, fear the progressives in their base more than they do "never Trumpers" in the Republican party. Of the two major parties, the establishment Democrats are clearly more progressive but have no interest in raising taxes on the rich and corporations, raising the minimum wage substantially, ending the filibuster, making DC a state, expanding the NLRB into the public sector in the Carolinas, fighting for M4A or ending the aggressive military encirclement of Russia and China, or enabling the majority of non-property owners to legislate for those who own property, despite endless bolviating to the contrary. And now with Repubs in control of the House, the Democrats can safely go about sounding like FDR. The need for "necessary illusions" Neihbur counseled is necessary to "keep ordinary person on course."

Marc Susselman said...

Jerry Fresia,

“The US could now have an African American or a woman or a homosexual protect Wall St at the expense of Main St, bomb seven countries, restrict immigration, privatize as much as possible including SS, and expand oil exploration in the face of climate catastrophe as earnestly as Republicans.” As earnestly as Republicans??

Wow! I now see why it is you and I disagree so much. It is as if I read (past tense) Moby Dick and concluded it is about how one’s obsessive compulsiveness in pursuing a single goal in life can result in one’s self-destruction. You, on the other hand, would interpret it as an allegory about how a capitalist sea captain subjects his crew to his own selfish goals, resulting in the death of almost everyone in the crew. Are they both right, or is one a better interpretation of the plot?

The Democrats have been fighting defense ever since Reagan captured the hearts of Americans with his supposed superb oratory (which I never heard). The Democrats have consistently fought the tax decreases for corporate America promoted by the Republicans. Biden just raised them again. The Democrats have been fighting the Republicans’ plans to privatize Social Security. Obama opposed the war in Iraq. (Yes, which Hilary Clinton and Biden supported, but Biden was a consistent critic of Bush’s failure to enlist a coalition of countries to join in the invasion.) You are arguing that Democrats support an African American for President and for Supreme Court Justice merely as shills for Wall St. That is rather insulting to the African-Americans. I did not agree with everything that Obama did – I thought he was naïve in expecting that Republicans would compromise with him in the best interest of the country, but he was handed a pretty bad deck to play with, given the economic debacle the Republicans had created with the 2008 financial collapse.

Do Wall St. and corporations wield enormous political power in our country? Of course they do. The ownership of property is viewed as a basic fundamental right in Western civilization, and was therefore included as one of the rights protected by government in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Should the Founding Fathers have drafted a Constitution which provided for collective ownership of property by the citizens? Such an idea would never have entered their minds. Why have so many blue color workers supported Republican candidates against their own collective bargaining interests?

The history of the world has always been a struggle between the few at the top who know how to obtain and manipulate power in their own self-interest, and those over whom they rule who are basically at a disadvantage because they are not as ruthless as those at the top. Historically, those who have acquired and wielded power have generally been military leaders who are willing to use force to obtain power, and once power is obtained, wield that same military force to retain power, and then hand that power to their descendants. They surrounded themselves with people who, acting in their own self-interest, pander to those who control the power. The American Revolution broke with that tradition, but its leaders were still devoted to the idea of property ownership as being a fundamental right. I give them credit for at least having broken with the tradition of wielding power inherited from their militaristic forefathers. You fault them for not, at the same time, having rejected the principle of individual property ownership – a principle, by the way with which most Americans, and most people on this planet, agree. You expect too much of our forefathers, and in turn expect to much from the, at the time, unique document they drafted.

LFC said...

Jerry Fresia
The Trilateral Commission report on the crisis of democracy was not written by Huntington alone but had as I recall three authors: Huntington, Michel Crozier, and Joji Watanuki. Unfortunately don't have time to engage on substance right now.

Achim Kriechel (A.K.) said...

@ james wilson,

thank you for the wishes, which I hereby return.

You are of course absolutely right that "we" should never give up our claim on those who represent us. Even if the "we" can only be identified as a fragment.

But in order to avoid a possible "history trap", I would like to formulate a point from my last contribution a little more pointedly. Two examples for this:

The first is Biden's "Inflation Reduction Act," which at first glance looks like a "good left" inverstment in some "good left" projects. It is widely criticized, but one can be sure that it will generate jobs in the US. A few weeks after the IRA was passed, Ford Motor Company management announced that it would cut thousands of jobs in Cologne, Germany, especially in development. German companies producing in the U.S. are cutting back their investments here and moving them to the U.S. as well.

Nothing new, of course. This is industrial capitalism in the age of globalization. It is also, for "leftist governments", like playing Cowboy's Checkers.

The second example is from a very meticulous research of a Belgian newspaper. It is about a well-known platform company called ****. In the past, this would have been called a cab company. Today, it doesn't have a single cab of its own anywhere in the world. Today, when someone requests a **** driver via an app from the company and pays him after the ride, 80% of that goes to the driver. He pays 25% tax on this 80%, in this case to the state of Belgium. Of the remaining 20% that **** earns, nothing stays in Belgium, because it goes to a company in the Netherlands. There is a subsidiary of **** that now pays 98% of 20% as a license fee to a company in the Bahamas. This company in turn pays a fee to the parent company in the USA, which is taxed there as normal. The bottom line is that the driver pays 20 times the tax rate on his earnings compared to the earnings of ****. The taxation of **** is less than 3%.

This is the escalation of industrial capitalism to platform capitalism. The example with the cabs is still harmless. Marc Zuckerberg is already dreaming of creating his own currency and has already founded a company (in Switzerland) that deals with it.

My conclusion: If you don't overcome nation-state thinking in one way or another, there will be neither left nor right governments that care about what is happening to us.


Jerry Fresia said...

LFC,

Yes, I know. But much of the language in the report, such as the reference to educational institutions as centers for the "indoctrination of the young" has been attributed to him. Plus as an advisor on Vietnam and other salient issues of the period, I thought it was okay to point to him as representative of the "liberal" position in a comment section.

james wilson said...

Part One

If I may intrude upon what has been an inappropriately very US-centric discussion of neoliberalism and if I may be excused for not referencing the great many studies on the subject: the term refers to a shift in the basic way capitalism functions. It became "neo" because liberalism, as understood more in the European sense than the American one, didn't quite fit with the social democracy that was so prevalent in Western Europe for a brief time. Then Thatcher-Reagan (I’m using them as shorthand for a much more complex political project) revived the old 19th Century verities, which you can read about in Charles Dickens "Hard Times," what with the deserving poor, who deserved some meagre support, and the undeserving poor, who deserved to be left on the trash heap, or, if you prefer, in homeless encampments subject to periodic police removals.

But I stray. The new regime that Thatcher-Reagan are associated with had both domestic and international dimensions. Actual policy responsibility for this can be spread around. Who precisely initiated it doesn’t really matter so much. What has mattered is that the framework for political and economic action dramatically shifted (Reagan, Thatcher, et al. might claim, just as well as the Democrats, Labour, and other democratic socialist parties, that circumstances left them no choice. The shift in circumstances came about as a result of the bind global capitalism found itself in by the 1970s.)

Domestically, the revived or neo liberalism imposed harsher conditions on almost everyone. (Watch “I, Daniel Blake” if you can for a terrible account of what this means for real people faced with a roboticised ideological system.) Everyone was now responsible only for themselves--hence, the notion of the micro-entrepreneur, everyone owns themselves, we are embodied lumps of capital, and we have the obligation to invest ourselves profitably, whether it be as precarious academics, uber drivers, or Elon Musks, or else. This had such consequences as the Clinton supported policy that welfare had to be linked with work, otherwise, again, or else. Similar things happened under Blairism/New Labour, etc. (One could, of course, make the argument that parties of the putative left have sought to manage a kinder, gentler neoliberalism at home, if not abroad, but that should not be taken to mean that the’ve ever been willing to over-rule neoliberal imperatives.) More significantly, though the effects are less immediately obvious, de-regulation and the like removed important decision making from the political realm, which meant that some important matters could no longer be accessed by the electorate. Many politicians wanted this, because they didn't want to make tough decisions that might cost them their political jobs. The corporate types ended up with a lot more power than before. (A US parallel to this, which the EU is seeking to emulate, is the displacement of political decision making onto the judicial system.)

james wilson said...

Part Two


Internationally, the same sort of thing happened. Political control diminished in the face of multi-national economic regimes where, for example, a corporation could sue a country, such as Canada, should Canada try to impose environmental regulations--"you can't do that, for it's curtailing 'our' right to make a huge profit." That sort of thing.

Basically, then, neoliberalism is a relatively recently introduced political-economic regime which requires the hollowing out of democracy, the reduction in the powers of the nation-states to make decisions for the benefit of their own citizens. We're now seeing some attempts to undo some of this, e.g., with Biden's attempt, much of it under the guise of 'national security', to re-industrialise some parts of the US economy. But I'm not sure other places have the power or the resources to break free from the neoliberal regime--and maybe the US doesn't either.

This last connects with Achim’s points at 10:48 AM. It’s pretty clear—the Europeans are already complaining about it—that the American turn towards economic nationalism is having negative consequences for them. But is it possible to replace neo-liberal globalism with globalism of a different sort? What sort of politics might bring that about? A related question is whether democracy yet has any possible meaning except in relation to nation-states? Hence, I'd suggest, the muddled scramble on the left, as distinct from the left-in-name-only, to try to come up with alternatives.

s. wallerstein said...

Here's the transcript of a interview on Marx with Brian Leiter. Leiter defines the Democrats as "the prudent wing of the ruling class".

https://elucidations.vercel.app/posts/transcript-episode-103/?fbclid=IwAR03DOdx_-Mu3xXNS29pR6NVRRFCuwN0EVyJq7YSN88Wq4rnANq7UU7s8uc

Jerry Fresia said...

Marc,

Just a couple of points - I don't want to bore everyone with a summary of where we differ.

You write: "Biden was a consistent critic of Bush’s failure to enlist a coalition of countries to join in the invasion." I understand you to be saying that there was a more effective way of rallying support for the invasion, in a fashion similar to Bush 1. I consider the invasion as pure evil. This is not "hating," just garden variety "outrage." Therefore, organizing a better way to commit evil is not a plus in my book.

I would like to say a word about the Framers. It is clear as a bell that what drove them to rush to Philadelphia was the growing militant unfolding democracies in each of the states. The state constitution of PA has been considered the most democratic American constitution before or sense - and it scared the hell out of the Framers. They had nothing but utter contempt for the ordinary white types (forget the others) who, through their state legislatures pushed forward checks on private power. So the Framers quickly altered their charge from one which required that all states approve a new constitution (but merely a correction to the articles) to one that required just 2/3's (I think, maybe 3/4) ratification. GW and the rest were no heroes breaking away from English aristocracy. Not only were they worried about England freeing the slaves, but as speculators in a private economy they could do much better than if they were awarded a slew of aristocratic titles and property. Look, if this were a story of the foundation of a new country in a fictional story, most Americans today would conclude that the Framers were unsavory characters who pulled off a coup, as they enslaved one set of human beings all the while slaughtering and stealing from another, the indigenous population. Our Framers weren't unique in this, just more successful. And yes, I agree, most of the American population were just as cut throat and entrepreneurial. So we should live by their horrible values today? That would be one thing, but when we are told ad nauseam that democracy is foundational, it makes me want to scream, "gag me with a bulldozer." What has been and is foundational is resistance to their scheme.

Jerry Fresia said...

Thanks for the quote, S.W. Quite useful.

Jerry Fresia said...

Marc,

Look, we disagree. We have different assumptions. Fine. When the MTG hordes rush the barricades you and I will be on the same side fighting back.

It is tempting to counter a few of your claims, but such would be too tedious and boring for the readership. I shall comment on one:

You write: "...but Biden was a consistent critic of Bush’s failure to enlist a coalition of countries to join in the invasion." I read this as saying that Biden "consistently" criticized Bush because he could have organized support for the invasion more effectively (as did his father?).

In Vietnam we were not on the wrong side, we were the wrong side. In Iraq, we were the evil invaders that were then responsible (according to Nuremberg principles) for the deaths of hundreds of thousands not to mention the associated misery. There was not a better or more effective way to organize something evil. This, I think, helps define our differences.

It's not about hating America or Biden, ya di yada

David Palmeter said...


Jerry,

First, thanks for the links you sent the other day and apologies for my not commenting on them. I’ve been under the weather and have a few other family issues that have taken time. I hope to get to them soon.

I was scanning today’s comments and saw your exchange with Marc. You won’t be surprised if I say that I’m pretty much with Marc on these issues. One of your points, in particular, is one of my pet peeves: the statement that among the causes for the Revolution was that the founders were “worried about England freeing the slaves.”

There is almost no evidence for that. What has been cited by the NY Times in responding to critics of the 1619 Project are (1) the 1771 Somerset decision by an English court holding that slavery was illegal in Britain; and (2) the proclamation of Dunmore, Virginia’s colonial governor, that would free the slaves of owners who rebelled.

Lord Mansfield’s Somerset decision was an oral statement from the bench. There is no official written statement of what he actually said. There are four or five accounts by reporters that are largely inconsistent. What is clear is that there was very little reporting of the decision in the colonial press, and most of that was in the North. There is no evidence that I know of that shows that people like Washington, John and Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Patrick Henry et al. were even aware of the decision, let alone motivated by it. In 1771, the same year as the decision, the Massachusetts colonial legislature passed a measure outlawing the slave trade in the colony. The English royal governor vetoed it. Moreover, in the 11 or so years between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention, seven of the original 13 colonies had already taken measures to end slavery. Strange behavior by people who were worried about the Brits ending slavery.

The Dunmore proclamation of November 1775 is even less convincing as evidence that the founders were “worried about England freeing the slaves.” The first thing to note about it is that it didn’t propose to free all of the slaves, only those whose owners—like Washington and Jefferson—had rebelled. Dunmore’s lesson: If you don’t want your slaves freed, don’t rebel. It was hardly an incitement to rebel.

Further, it was issued in November 1775. Consider what had preceded it that year: In April, the battles at Lexington and Concord; in May, the 2nd Continental Congress; in June the Continental Army was established (with Washington as commander-in-chief), the battle of Bunker Hill (one of the bloodiest of the war), and Dunmore, feeling things in Virginia were getting too hot for comfort, flees Williamsburg for the safety of a British warship just off shore. All of that in June. Five months later, in November, he issued his proclamation from the safety of the ship. Shortly thereafter the ship returned to England, with him still aboard. The war was well underway before Dunmore proclaimed anything.

Jerry Fresia said...

David,

Your arguments are very good. I was relying on the scholarship of Gerald Horne plus a few of the articles you cite which, indeed, to not justify such a broad claim. I shall refrain from making that claim until I did a little deeper myself to see if there is justification for Horne's argument.

Thank you.

aaall said...

I would like to make it clear that I fully support our new alien overlords and would be honored to administer Hawaii for their benefit.

aaall said...

Jerry, Vietnam was a proxy war between the USSR and the PRC on the North's side and the U.S. and some ANZUS troops on the South's. Both N & S had agency. After all the South was able to conspire with Nixon to possibly scuttle the peace talks before the 1968 elections in the U.S.

Of course, Vietnam, along with the '60s civil rights legislation and the Arab - Israeli conflicts, was instrumental in ending the New Deal consensus and the subsequent rise of neoliberalism. Payback, I guess.

G.H.W. Bush encouraging Iraqi Shiites to rise up and then standing by while Saddam slaughtered them was evil. What has always puzzled me is how one invades a nation with no plans should one succeed. Disbanding an army and putting Heritage interns in charge of an economy is hardy a plan.

s.w., not trying to start a fight, just understand. On reflection, I don't despise anyone, even Putin (certainly not going to feel bad if ...). Always business, never personal simplifies ones life.

LFC said...

aaall,

A proxy war is a war fought by proxy. The U.S. did not fight the Vietnam War by proxy; it fought it directly. At the height there were about a half-million U.S. soldiers in the country. That ain't no f******* proxy war, not on the U.S. side.

Marc Susselman said...

LFC,

I believe that you have misinterpreted aaall’s reference to a proxy war. In a proxy war, one or more of the combatting sides are proxies for another power. In the Ukraine/Russia conflict, for example, some are claiming that Ukraine, an actual combatant, is a proxy for the U.S. and NATO. Russia, being an actual combatant, is not a proxy for another power. Aaall wrote: “Vietnam was a proxy war between the USSR and the PRC on the North's side and the U.S. and some ANZUS troops on the South's.” Since we know that the ANZUS troops were actual combatants, then the U.S. was also an actual combatant, not a proxy. It was the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, against which the U.S. and ANZUS troops actually fought, which were the proxies for the USSR and the Peoples’ Republic of China. He was not denying that the U.S. was an actual combatant in the conflict.

Marc Susselman said...

My above comment requires clarification. We know the ANZUS troops did actually fight in the Vietnam War, because Australia took an active role in the war and sent troops to fight there.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_the_Vietnam_War

Achim Kriechel (A.K.) said...

@ James,

I have seen Ken Loach's film. I would have liked it to be shown not only in Cannes, but above all in Davos. I like your term "real people". Because that's what it's about first and last. A layer of clay in the earth through which water no longer drains and on whose surface everything collects. One might be tempted to say "real life".

Unfortunately, this is also the soil on which people like Trump or the neo-fascists in Europe reap their harvest. The missing "we" is reformatted into "movements."

Transnational treaties negotiated between democratically legitimized governments that define new social, environmental, and economic standards and much more that will be enshrined in the constitutions of these countries. And within that, a jointly respected judiciary as a complement and continuation of national instances. This sounds like utopia, but my poor mind is unfortunately hardly able to recognize alternatives. I know, before such a thing becomes probable, people live on the back of the moon.

LFC said...

Marc,
I just don't think proxy war is a very good description of the conflict.

Yes the USSR and PRC supported the North, and yes the situation in the South was complicated with, in the beginning, more elements in play than just the regime in Saigon and its Communist-nationalist opponents, but despite all the complications I think it was basically a civil war that became to sone significant extent 'internationalized'. I think that is a better description of the conflict. 'Proxy war' has implications as a description that I don't think aaall intended. I think 'proxy war' is better reserved for other situations. That said, there are some people who view almost every major conflict in the Third World during the Cold War as a proxy war. I think that is somewhat too broad a use of the term. But if there is agreement on basic facts (which, to repeat, are complicated) then the labels become perhaps less important.

Btw went to a theater and saw a movie last night when everyone else was watching the Super Bowl. 'Close', by a Belgian director. Won the prize at Cannes that comes right below the Palme d'Or. A beautiful film with superb acting.

Marc Susselman said...

LFC,

Thank you for the movie recommendation. I will check it out. Close is one of the Oscar nominees for Best Foreign Film this year. The film Argentna is favored to win.

Have you watched my recommendaiion, Nine Days, yet? Has anyone watched the movie?

LFC said...

I haven't watched Nine Days but I will watch the trailer. If I really like the trailer I might be willing to pay a one-off fee to see the movie. I don't subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Apple Prime or whatever it's called, or any other streaming service.

David Zimmerman said...

I watched Nine Days at Marc's recommendation.

A touching reflection on what makes a life worth living (again). Here's a pretty accurate review: https://screenrant.com/nine-days-2021-movie-reviews/#:~:text=Edson%20Oda’s%20feature-length%20directorial%20debut%2C%20Nine%20Days%2C%20follows,of%20cinema%20that%20sincerely%20tugs%20at%20the%20heartstrings.

It's always nice to see Benedict Wong, Zazie Beetz and Tony Hall in a movie. (The actor playing the Will character I had not seen before.)

However: I found the power invested in the Will character, who was authorized to choose who gets to "live again," arbitrary and unfair. Who appointed him?

David Zimmerman said...

Follow-up to remarks about Nine Days:

The best things in the movie are the "consolation prize" videos of the really good experiences (in their past lives) that Will arranges for the losing candidates. Heartbreakingly touching.

Marc Susselman said...

David,

I'm glad that you enjoyed the movie. I would discuss the plot more, but I do not want to provide any movie spoolers.

Marc

aaall said...

LFC, mostly what Marc wrote, perhaps I could have been clearer. "Vietnam" was an anti-colonial war which segued into a civil/proxy war after the French pulled out (sort of a fable maybe around Ho at Versailles). Ho was a committed Communist as well as a nationalist from the 1920s and the situation in Indochina from the 1930s to Điện Biên Phủ was way messy. By DBP the outlines of the proxy war were formed. The USSR and the PRC supported the North and U.S. the South (guy I knew back in the day - early 1960s - was one of those "advisors.") The U.S. went from proxy in the 1950s to actual engagement with the VC/North and proxy with the USSR/PRC in the 1960s and then back to proxy in 1973 until the FoS in 1975. We should also recall that Cambodia and Laos played their parts. The North prevailed in 1975 and an united Vietnam went on to a brief conflict with the PRC and an invasion of Cambodia (centuries long lesson - don't mess around with Vietnam).

aaall said...

s.w., I just read a piece in the WP about the current Russian diaspora which reminded me about the chap you mentioned a few months ago. Is he still in Chile, how is he doing?

s. wallerstein said...

aaall,

Yes, Anatole is still here. Dealing with the bureaucracy trying to get the equivalent of a green card. Has had some problems adjusting to Chile especially because in the social circles of his Chilean family the machismo he learned in Russia is frowned upon, but otherwise ok.

F Lengyel said...

Pro union? After stopping a railroad strike over conditions that led to the catastrophic railroad derailment in Ohio and now another in Houston, Texas?

aaall said...

Will we ever abandon Green-Lanternism? A railroad strike just prior to the 2022 midterms would likely have been an electoral disaster that might have carried over into 2024. That would have benefited the hedge funds that now control our Borkian railroad oligopoly, so no way a strike would have turned out well for the workers or the nation in general.



Anonymous said...

aaall,

there's nothing wrong and a lot that's right in urging that one should try to act with forethought, with an eye to possible consequences, but I have to say some of your comments come across to me as fear-driven do-nothingism. Sorry.

F Lengyel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aaall said...

FL and Anon, fine, but what is your proposed path? If Biden had New Deal (1934) or Great Society (1964) majorities in both houses we would find out the depth of Joe's commitment. For that matter, the 1964 Congress couldn't manage to repeal 14b. Tell us what you would have done.

Just curious, are you all U.S. residents?

Anonymous said...

aaall

I go along with Raymond Geuss's often made point that it is not necessary for critics to propose alternatives. Surely, even in politics, a critic's criticisms may encourage others to propose alternatives even where the critic does not do so. In other words, there's surely a healthy dimension to criticism in and of itself.

And while we're at it,

https://jacobin.com/2023/02/seymour-hersh-interview-nord-stream-pipeline

https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/how-to-blow-up-a-pipeline

s. wallerstein said...

Anonymous,

I agree with you 100% that it is not the job of philosophers (or philosophical critics) to propose political alternatives, but to criticize all and everyone.

I suspect that aaall sees the situation, not from the viewpoint of a philosopher or a philosophical critic, but from the standpoint of a pragmatic politician.

Both viewpoints seem worth expressing to me.

There is no reason they need to argue since they are not playing the same game, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

I agree with what you say, s.w. But I'd also note that it is the 'pragmatists' who often (usually?) throw out the challenge to those who value criticism per se.

s. wallerstein said...

Anonymous,

For sure, the pragmatists can be very intolerant towards free-spirit criticism.

In one of the thousands of interviews of Chomsky in Youtube, he harshly criticizes Obama and the interviewer asks him if he doesn't realize that Obama is wonderful compared to the Republicans.

For sure, answers Chomsky, but my job isn't to promote Obama, but to speak in the name of certain ideals. (not an exact quote)

aaall said...

"I go along with Raymond Geuss's often made point that it is not necessary for critics to propose alternatives."

Perhaps, but it's fair for others to assume that, absent those proposed alternatives, that critic has little or no actual knowledge about the issue they are criticizing. I guess others may be encouraged to propose alternatives but in order to do that they will have to the work that our initial critic was unable/unwilling to do. Of course, its likely those others have already done that work and our solution-free/result-free critic would have known that had they bothered to do the work themselves.

In the instant case, it's neither fair nor useful to criticize
Biden's role with less then a cursory knowledge (if that) of the economics, history, and politics involved.

There can be no philosophical/political division as this is "which side are you on" matter. Constructively, a horseshoe does approach closing.

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/3447/Transformation_of_Work_and_the_Law_of_Workplace_Accidents__1842_1910__The.pdf?sequence=2

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title45/chapter8&edition=prelim

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/rail-strikes-history-1877-2022/

aaall said...

Anon, While I don't really care who blew up the pipeline, you might consider the source (good riddance, regardless):

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/02/did-joe-biden-attack-nord-stream-2-this-story-has-some-big-problems/

Chomsky's climate change/nuclear war blinders are a problem. His focus would guarantee both. Obama, of course, can be fairly criticized for many things. Appointing neoliberal hacks like Emanuel, Geithner, and Summers and failing to understand that Republicans are basically rat bastards were massive fails.

aaall said...

Apologies for the multiple posts but this seems important. If anyone lives or knows someone who lives in Wisconsin, there is an important election next week.

https://balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/wisconsin-supreme-court-primary-600x600.jpg

F Lengyel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

aaall


“but it’s fair for others to assume . . .”???

I don’t think it’s at all fair for others to assume any such thing as you assert at 2:40 PM. I can’t even begin to imagine how you can believe any such thing. Except, perhaps, we’re encountering another such clash of common senses (at least one of which is poorly grounded) as is discussed by John Guillory in his 2002 analysis of the Sokal affair?

So much for the philosophical differences. And if you don’t care who blew up the pipeline, then I don’t really think much of your politics either.

We seem to be in accord on Wisconsin, but given our other differences, I doubt we're in any more than an accord on the surface.

aaall said...

Anon, I found the gloating on the far right and the tankie left last year over how Europe was going to get theirs come winter annoying and petty. Didn't work out that way, did it? Still, allowing Russia that much potential power was foolish. Other arrangements have worked out it seems so scrap it.

Anonymous said...

I guess there's more than one way to be insufferably annoying. Smart alecky cynicism just get's my goat.

Danny said...

'Neoliberalism', the term, has a pejorative valence. Yet it must have been at some point, that it took on negative connotations. Certainly these days, it seems to be employed principally by critics of market reform and laissez-faire capitalism. I think it's funny to suppose that there is such a hegemony, given that Between 1965 and 2020, the average tax-to-GDP ratio in the OECD area increased from 24.9% to 33.6%.

Anonymous said...

I call you out for insulting the President of the United States

Oh my Gawd! Insulting THE.. PRESIDENT... OF... THE... UNITED... STATES... OF... AMERICA!

What’s next, Wallerstein? The Star-Spangled Banner doesn’t bring tears to your eyes? Your heart doesn’t swell full of patriotic fervour when you see the Stars and Stripes? You don’t like apple pie?

I might be way too imaginative but I can easily imagine that outburst coming from a Tomás de Torquemada, after hearing someone say that Mary could not have been a virgin when she conceived Jesus.

Like a Torquemada, Susselman is accusing Wallerstein of blasphemy. Thank goodness, he has no power to sent anybody to the bonfire.

I might be mistaken but -- to me -- that kind of attitude can best be categorised as fanaticism. Marc Susselman is a zealot.

Sure, I can admit that fanatics like him can be smart. They can be skilled sophists too, able to make a living (probably quite comfortable too) out of that. But logical? Nah. Sorry, Howie, that’s a bridge too far.

In his arguments, Marc demonstrates no interest whatsoever in engaging the ideas of his "enemies". Ideas not his target. His goal is to assassinate them morally or at least diminish them as human beings, hurt them personally, humiliate them.

That outburst (which if sincere -- something I have difficulty associating with Susselman -- only demonstrates a servile reverence to power), is merely the latest, but not the best, evidence to substantiate my claim.

Use your memory, Howie. As recently as a week or two ago, Susselman’s argument against Adorno and Horkheimer was that they had betrayed a fellow intellectual and because of that they should be denied any intellectual achievement: their alleged immorality implies they are wrong.

You can’t call that a logical argument.

The same with Marx. His argument against him (whom Hitler insisted in calling "the Jew Karl Marx") is that he was antisemitic. Without having ever bothered to read any of Marx’s many works, Susselman had the gall of saying that Marx’s alleged antisemitism was central to his other ideas.

With respect, Howie, I submit that you find Susselman logical because you share his unexamined values, prejudices, and attitudes. Therefore, they make sense to you. He doesn’t need to persuade you, Howie.

Let me put this differently: your evaluation of Susselman is self-serving. But I assure you, others are much more demanding.

In fact, not even you are totally indifferent to Susselman’s shortcomings. When you reluctantly admit Wallerstein’s gentlemanly behaviour, you only highlight by implication that Susselman lacks that virtue.

In your defense and to your credit, Howie, you refrain from adopting his behaviour. You are better than him.

s. wallerstein said...


"I call you out for insulting the President of the United States".

Anonymous,

Yes, I remember that one.

What was doubly weird was that the same commenter spent early2017- early 2021 insulting the then President of the United States with the same fervor.

So the rule, I discover, is that you're not allowed to insult the President of the United States if he or she is a Democrat. Otherwise, great.

You have to keep up with the rules in this game.