UK Politics Omnishambles: Page 5 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

UK Politics Omnishambles

innervisionscm

Burnwinter wrote:
😆 The "postmodern academic left" is that what we're calling anyone who isn't a racist now?

There's nothing postmodern about Corbyn's politics - if anything his wide support is evidence of the slow death of postmodern thinking since the 2008 crisis. "Metropolitan/academic left" is probably more accurate.

Burnwinter

Postmodernism isn't really dying as far as I've noticed—might be fairer to say the "linguistic turn" and postcolonialism are in a very intense and productive dialogue with materialist political economy? I've seen countless essays synthesising intersectionality and race theory with traditional analysis of class struggle.

Trots aside, even explicitly Marxist outlets are publishing some decent writing about Brexit that incorporates the "postmodern" stuff the alternative Right despises so intently—intersectional perspectives, privilege theory, queer theory, discourse, power and so on.

Corbyn himself barely ever advocates a policy that wouldn't have been considered the height of pragmatic social democracy twenty or thirty years ago, even if a publicly owned railway now seems like a utopian dream to some. His politics are incredibly sane—except for the part where he has a lot of power ranged against him.

Kel Varnsen

innervisionscm wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
😆 The "postmodern academic left" is that what we're calling anyone who isn't a racist now?

There's nothing postmodern about Corbyn's politics - if anything his wide support is evidence of the slow death of postmodern thinking since the 2008 crisis. "Metropolitan/academic left" is probably more accurate.

I call them postmodern because they (often) have a very relativistic view of both the world and knowledge.

Bold Tone

innervisionscm wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
😆 The "postmodern academic left" is that what we're calling anyone who isn't a racist now?

There's nothing postmodern about Corbyn's politics - if anything his wide support is evidence of the slow death of postmodern thinking since the 2008 crisis. "Metropolitan/academic left" is probably more accurate.

I disagree.
Most of his supporters in the election were young student types who are naturally anti-political, or rather, anti-establishment. I think they are the same kind of demographic that followed Bernie Sanders.

ElGeniodeOviedo

If anything "the left" is moving away from postmodernism, which is really a better fit for cultural, rather than institutional leftism. Apart from the sympathies of famous Communists (read Sartre), postmodernism isn't really a natural fit for hardcore leftism, probably more aligned with liberalism. There's really nothing particularly postmodern about Crenshaw's intersectionality or modern gender politics really- it's straightforward sociological theory not far apart from what people like Durkheim or DuBois were doing, it's even less self-reflective or flexible than something from Weber for example

Biggus

Burnwinter wrote:
😆 The "postmodern academic left" is that what we're calling anyone who isn't a racist now?

😆 So thats why everyone calls me racist.........

jones

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
If anything "the left" is moving away from postmodernism, which is really a better fit for cultural, rather than institutional leftism. Apart from the sympathies of famous Communists (read Sartre), postmodernism isn't really a natural fit for hardcore leftism, probably more aligned with liberalism. There's really nothing particularly postmodern about Crenshaw's intersectionality or modern gender politics really- it's straightforward sociological theory not far apart from what people like Durkheim or DuBois were doing, it's even less self-reflective or flexible than something from Weber for example

Why do you think (Max) Weber is not self-reflective?

Burnwinter

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
If anything "the left" is moving away from postmodernism, which is really a better fit for cultural, rather than institutional leftism. Apart from the sympathies of famous Communists (read Sartre), postmodernism isn't really a natural fit for hardcore leftism, probably more aligned with liberalism. There's really nothing particularly postmodern about Crenshaw's intersectionality or modern gender politics really- it's straightforward sociological theory not far apart from what people like Durkheim or DuBois were doing, it's even less self-reflective or flexible than something from Weber for example

Worth noting that there's a big difference between the phenomenon of postmodernism (such as it identifiably is), its critics and their widely varying theories, and the term "postmodern" used in a pejorative sense by aggrieved conservatives.

I agree with you about Crenshaw's intersectionality. Her concept was simple and readily compatible with other theories—any problems have arisen because people didn't want to deal with their neglect of complex subject positions within political movements such as feminism or Marxism-Leninism.

However, I disagree that Foucault's strain of theory fits comfortably alongside contemporary liberalism. Its perspective on the relationship between speech, power and politics doesn't gel with the aggressive and absolute free speech agenda.

ElGeniodeOviedo

jones wrote:
El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
If anything "the left" is moving away from postmodernism, which is really a better fit for cultural, rather than institutional leftism. Apart from the sympathies of famous Communists (read Sartre), postmodernism isn't really a natural fit for hardcore leftism, probably more aligned with liberalism. There's really nothing particularly postmodern about Crenshaw's intersectionality or modern gender politics really- it's straightforward sociological theory not far apart from what people like Durkheim or DuBois were doing, it's even less self-reflective or flexible than something from Weber for example

Why do you think (Max) Weber is not self-reflective?

He is to a certain extent but certainly not to the level of (for simplicity's sake, I will be terrifyingly broad) those who can be categorized as "postmodern". That is mostly to Weber's credit in my book, for what it's worth, who I quite like apart from the infamous Protestant work ethic which was bunkum

ElGeniodeOviedo

Burnwinter wrote:
El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
If anything "the left" is moving away from postmodernism, which is really a better fit for cultural, rather than institutional leftism. Apart from the sympathies of famous Communists (read Sartre), postmodernism isn't really a natural fit for hardcore leftism, probably more aligned with liberalism. There's really nothing particularly postmodern about Crenshaw's intersectionality or modern gender politics really- it's straightforward sociological theory not far apart from what people like Durkheim or DuBois were doing, it's even less self-reflective or flexible than something from Weber for example

Worth noting that there's a big difference between the phenomenon of postmodernism (such as it identifiably is), its critics and their widely varying theories, and the term "postmodern" used in a pejorative sense by aggrieved conservatives.

I agree with you about Crenshaw's intersectionality. Her concept was simple and readily compatible with other theories—any problems have arisen because people didn't want to deal with their neglect of complex subject positions within political movements such as feminism or Marxism-Leninism.

However, I disagree that Foucault's strain of theory fits comfortably alongside contemporary liberalism. Its perspective on the relationship between speech, power and politics doesn't gel with the aggressive and absolute free speech agenda.

Yes, Foucault's work does illuminate the subliminal or less salient effects of traditional social arrangements and the "free market", rather in line with what you were saying about how the modern libertarian position ignores these relations in favor of its obsession with state hegemony and coercion.

Foucault clearly would be a better fit for communist-based ideology, but I didn't have him in mind as the sole force behind (again to be overly reductive) postmodernism. Even in Foucalt's case, the actual appearance of a recognizably Communist state as envisioned by Marx is so distant and immaterial that it's hard to apply any critique to it. If such a state did come into existence, with its attendant structures and institutions, only then can a concrete critique even become possible, perhaps even one in accordance with Foucault's perspectives and methodologies

Burnwinter

Well, part of the problem with "postmodernism" as an umbrella term is the absence of a single school or theory associated with it.

To me the defining work on the subject would be Fred Jameson's, which reflects even less positively on the phenomenon than Kel might.

Which goes to show that it's not really a useful term in mainstream political debate—it just becomes a sort of anti-intellectual bogey word that means "theory gobbledegook that I, a rational and serious person, do not want to engage with".

The real underlying debate is one between the premise of a holistic and all-encompassing political reason suitable to the implementation of a "rational" technocratic policy in every circumstance, and the premise that such a thing has not, does not and can not exist. I know I would rather remain on the side of those who are sceptical about the uses and limits of reason.

jones

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
jones wrote:
Why do you think (Max) Weber is not self-reflective?

He is to a certain extent but certainly not to the level of (for simplicity's sake, I will be terrifyingly broad) those who can be categorized as "postmodern". That is mostly to Weber's credit in my book, for what it's worth, who I quite like apart from the infamous Protestant work ethic which was bunkum

Really? I think it's an excellent work and probably the most interesting thing I've read in sociology. There might be some positions in there that can be argued over but this is the first time I see someone call it "bunkum"

ElGeniodeOviedo

jones wrote:
El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
He is to a certain extent but certainly not to the level of (for simplicity's sake, I will be terrifyingly broad) those who can be categorized as "postmodern". That is mostly to Weber's credit in my book, for what it's worth, who I quite like apart from the infamous Protestant work ethic which was bunkum

Really? I think it's an excellent work and probably the most interesting thing I've read in sociology. There might be some positions in there that can be argued over but this is the first time I see someone call it "bunkum"

Bunkum was perhaps a tad harsh, but despite the fact that Weber's thought and application of method is very insightful at times, he ultimately plays fast and loose with the empirical realities, including the titular thesis.

The Vocational Lectures, particularly Politics as a Vocation, are more vintage Weber in depth of thought and comprehensive argument

ElGeniodeOviedo

Burnwinter wrote:
Well, part of the problem with "postmodernism" as an umbrella term is the absence of a single school or theory associated with it.

To me the defining work on the subject would be Fred Jameson's, which reflects even less positively on the phenomenon than Kel might.

Which goes to show that it's not really a useful term in mainstream political debate—it just becomes a sort of anti-intellectual bogey word that means "theory gobbledegook that I, a rational and serious person, do not want to engage with".

The real underlying debate is one between the premise of a holistic and all-encompassing political reason suitable to the implementation of a "rational" technocratic policy in every circumstance, and the premise that such a thing has not, does not and can not exist. I know I would rather remain on the side of those who are sceptical about the uses and limits of reason.

It's used as a catch-all derogatory term for modern cultural leftism by those who aren't very informed, true. The French Revolution was also against traditional cultural and religious social mores as well, but that doesn't mean it was "postmodern".

To a certain extent, it's not entirely surprising, as the biggest blow against the older value system- the legalization of gay marriage- was partially marketed on liberal grounds, or as Pope Benedict might've said, "the dictatorship of moral relativism". But that was a purely pragmatic political choice, which doesn't say much about the Left's agenda writ large

jones

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
jones wrote:
Really? I think it's an excellent work and probably the most interesting thing I've read in sociology. There might be some positions in there that can be argued over but this is the first time I see someone call it "bunkum"

Bunkum was perhaps a tad harsh, but despite the fact that Weber's thought and application of method is very insightful at times, he ultimately plays fast and loose with the empirical realities, including the titular thesis.

The Vocational Lectures, particularly Politics as a Vocation, are more vintage Weber in depth of thought and comprehensive argument

Empirism like anything else is a matter of interpretation I guess. I thought his main idea and arguments were convincing, examples given like British, Dutch and later American puritans and how the idea of capitalism and their striving for salvation coincided were well picked I thought. It's important to note that he never implied the two as an active deliberate marriage but explicitly stated that it came at the end of a very long development

The two vocational lectures I've read (politics and science) were well written (although the latter at least in German is a bit slow) but neither was as interesting to me as the Protestant Ethic. The ideas were well thought out but mostly not exactly revolutionary, with the Protestant Ethic (have to admit it was a few years ago) I had a real scales-from-my-eyes moment as it connected a number of dots in a way I hadn't thought of before.

Not an expert in this field by any means though. Just was a bit surprised to see you rate it so lowly, I just did a quick Google check and found it was rated by the International Sociological Association as the fourth most important sociological book in the 20th century (first being Economy and Society, by some distance too). Of course there's also a lot of funded criticism of it, maybe it really was just the word choice that came as a surprise

ElGeniodeOviedo

It's without a doubt one of the most prominent and influential works of sociology in the 20th century, and perhaps a contender (along with the Raw and the Cooked, Clash of Civilizations and a few select others) as the most influential 20th century social science work. But like another canonical sociological work, Pinker's the Better Angels of our Nature, I dont believe the arguments hold up to external scrutiny. But like you said, it's been quite a while since I've read the thing and by no means an expert on it so I'll have to leave it at that

banduan

There's nothing modern about the post.

Biggus

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/michael-foot-memorial-vandalised-with-swastikas

Further to the murder of Jo Cox this is what has been loosed by those fucking maggot cunts Farage and Johnson.
I'm not familiar with UK law maybe Savz can be of some assistance, but can they be charged (legally) or sued (civilly) with incitement to murder racial hate and criminal damage?

Biggus

Wrecking maggot quits.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36702468

flobaba

I don't get it. Why are they all stepping back now??

« Previous Page Next Page »