Suchergebnisse

Parents might think that math isn't and shouldn't be political. But they would, apparently, be wrong. California has approved math standards that incorporate social justice themes.
The post Math for Marxism appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Our last three guests on the show, Oren Cass, Francis Fukuyama, and Glenn Hubbard, have each brought forth their critiques and suggestions for how liberalism and neoliberalism work (or ought to work) in our society. In this episode, Bethany and Luigi reflect and take stock of how the political and economic components of these ideas might differ, where their promises have failed, and who has benefited from their messy implementation.

In the process, they try answering: What would a new version of (neo)liberalism look like?

The Treasury, high on pre-budget coffee fumes, has floated the idea of removing tax relief on foreign investments on international ISAs. To the Treasury, this would increase investment in British companies, reviving our ailing capital markets and support equities. To everyone else, this would decimate wealth and growth opportunities. We hope that this is the Treasury launching kites and seeing what does not fly - without a doubt, this policy would slam straight back into the ground.Not only is this an unpleasant return to mercantilism, the idea that we get wealthier by just keeping our money in the economy rather than from consumption and trade, but it would wallop households at a time of acute financial uncertainty.Let's step back and look at why this policy should be consigned to the shredder. Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs) provide a tax-free account of up to £20,000 in tax savings for equity, bonds, and fund shares, and they have proved immensely popular. In 2022, ISAs had a market value of £741.6bn, with £459.8bn of that being in stocks and shares ISAs. This forms a solid base for participation in British capitalism and a core component of our financial and relatively high wealth.No wonder the Treasury is hungry to divert a lot of this money into Britain's markets.However, by essentially tariffing international investment and outward FDI, British ISA holders will be left much worse off. As HMRC data shows, it's everyday Brits who would be most affected. Over 6 million holders of ISAs are in the £10,000 to £20,000 income bracket, and a further 4.8m are in the £20,000 to £30,000 bracket, too. Those on low salaries, who use their ISAs as safety net pools of cash, or the almost £1bn a year withdrawn to buy a house, will be hit hardest.Additionally, the scheme would create yet another barrier to the efficient allocation of capital. By removing tax relief on foreign investments ISA holders would be artificially incentivised to invest into less efficient UK firms. This would be reasonable in a world without international trade, but when the UK imports 33 percent of all its goods consumed, it's a bad idea. Investment in German cars, French wine and American oil will bring far greater gains, in terms of quality of product and price to UK consumers than investment into UK based alternatives. But this is exactly what such a policy would encourage. Free trade, allowing for the efficient allocation of capital not only within but across nations, has improved standards of living across the globe, it's what made Britain rich in the first place. Policy today should be encouraging this process, not restricting it to score political points. If the Treasury wanted a more British focussed financial product, they would do well to listen to UKFinance's call for a British ISA, and advertise it widely. With UK households only holding around 11% of their assets in equities, compared to much higher percentages in the G7, this would be a fantastic opportunity for British savers. However, a tariff led approach to investment simply will not work. As ASI Senior Fellow Sam Bowman has pointed out, "The FTSE 350 is up 6% over the past five years. The S&P 500 is up 80%." Why invest in Britain, when the world is giving much better returns?






















































































































The Treasury's intention misses the fundamental causes for the lack of investment in UK equities markets, and instead looks for a quick fix which is destined to calamitously explode. We know that there isn't enough liquidity in the system for firms to list in UK markets. Placing a tariff on outward FDI would only temporarily address this. Shortly after coming into effect, we would see a substantial bubble, inevitably set to burst when this capital floods the market and is poorly allocated.What the UK needs to do to address weak equity market performance is to take a serious look at reforming the supply side of the economy, addressing cumbersome planning regulations that stop real business growth, sky-high energy bills which push ever larger bills through post boxes and then SMEs into bankruptcy, and the loathsome salaries that skilled workers can expect. Liquidity is only one spoke of Britain's mangled wheels. Indeed, liquidity is the result of well-functioning markets, not the other way around. Fixing our capital markets will take more than one poorly-thought out policy.Finally, the big question is, how would this be enforced? It sounds, in the words of one financial stakeholder I spoke to, like a complete nightmare to manage. Whether retrospective, or going forward, the enforcement mechanisms would be byzantine, full of loopholes, and ultimately too expensive and ineffective.As Adam Smith himself said: "The proprietor of stock is properly a citizen of the world and is not necessarily attached to any particular country. He would be apt to abandon the country in which he was exposed to a vexatious inquisition in order to be assessed to a burdensome tax and would remove his stock to some other country where he could either carry on his business or enjoy his fortune more at his ease."​​

Our guest for Episode 12 of Fully Automated is Maïa Pal, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Oxford Brookes University. Among other things, Maïa is a scholar of early modern European history, focusing on the colonial origins of the modern state. She is an editor for Historical Materialism. And she is currently working on a book project, entitled Jurisdictional Accumulation: an Early Modern History of Law, Empires, and Capital (forthcoming, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). You can find her on Twitter @maia_pal

This episode represents the third installment in our occasional series, on Marxism in International Relations. Previous guests in this series include Bryant Sculos (Episode 9), on the the topic of Marxist pedagogy, and Kevin Funk and Sebastian Sclofsky (Episode 10), about the sorry state of Marxism in IR, and in Political Science more generally. In this episode, however, Maia helps us begin to think about what it might mean to apply Marxism, in IR.

I invited Maïa on the show after I read her recent piece, Introducing Marxism in International Relations, in e-IR. In this piece, she argues that the contribution of Marxism in IR is to reveal what other, less critical approaches may contrive to hide. That is, how many concepts we normally take for granted in IR, like the international itself, can distract us from analyzing the social relations that comprise them, and the history of the material conditions that shape those relations, in turn.

As we discuss, some of even the most critical scholars in IR eschew Marxism because they fear it constitutes a kind of dogmatism. In the interview, however, you'll hear Maia refer to a letter that Karl Marx wrote, to Arnold Ruge, in which he states:
"But if the designing of the future and the proclamation of ready-made solutions for all time is not our affair, then we realize all the more clearly what we have to accomplish in the present—I am speaking of a ruthless criticism of everything existing, ruthless in two senses: The criticism must not be afraid of its own conclusions, nor of conflict with the powers that be."
So, in this spirit, Pal outlines for us what we might perhaps want to call a relentless Marxism — one unafraid to examine itself, and its own suppositions about the world.

As Maia says in the interview, the function of Marxism in IR is to challenge and destabilize many of the concepts it cherishes, and which might appear otherwise stable to the scholar: not just the division between the national and the international, but that of the political and the economic. Marxism, Maia suggests, shatters the "linear progressive narrative of the history of international relations," as a discipline, and opens us up to the possibility of a much more messy and brutal history; a history of empire, and imperial conquest!

We covered A LOT of ground in this interview, and the result is a slightly longer episode than usual. But I hope you'll stick with us to the end. Later in the show, you're going to hear us talk about some of the implications of Maia's work for the left today: whether or in what respects can we say the state in globalization still has political capacity, and how might the left conceive of this capacity as it grapples with the question of anti-capitalist strategy; and how debates about xenophobia among the working class and so-called 'deplorables' can overlook not only the nuances of working-class electoral preferences, but can distract us from thinking about the 'normal' racism of the state as it works to categorize migrant populations as undeserving of access to wealthy zones and spaces, within globalization.

Towards the end, we'll also chat about what its like to be an editor with a left-academic journal like Historical Materialism, and get a little bit into the rationale behind the journal's latest issue, on identity politics. Finally, we get into Maia's current book project, and why she believes that Marxists need to pay more attent...

From Weaver v. Millsaps, decided Wednesday by the Georgia Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge C. Andrew Fuller, joined by Judges Anne Elizabeth Barnes and Benjamin Land: After Michael Weaver and others acting at his behest posted negative Google reviews of Valerie Millsaps's frame shop business, she published a response, calling Weaver a…

'EU and Mercosur leaders ignore the voice of the people to push forward with toxic deal' declared the Stop EU – Mercosur campaign alliance, a coalition of more than 450 organisations from Latin America and Europe, including trade unions, farmers organisations, social movements, animal activists and environmentalists. The alliance held a two-day meeting in Brussels on 17 and 18 July in parallel to the summit of EU leaders and leaders from the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), at which a conclusion of the highly controversial EU – Mercosur 'free' trade agreement was also discussed. Around 80 representatives of Stop EU – Mercosur members from Latin America and Europe gathered in Brussels to discuss the problems with the proposed treaty, explore alternatives as well as co-ordinate their strategies to stop that treaty to be concluded, ratified and implemented. In this blog post, I will report on several key conclusions by the Stop EU – Mercosur alliance.
The post Cementing neo-colonial relations: the EU – Mercosur 'free' trade deal appeared first on Progress in Political Economy (PPE).

Chase Foster (SOAS University of London; Munich School of Public Policy at the Technical University of Munich) & Kathleen Thelen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Department of Political Science) have posted Brandeis in Brussels: Regulated Competition and Economic Coordination...

 This post is illustrated by some of the promo work I have done for the bookI have commented before, more than once even, that the intersection of Spinoza and Marx is less a position, something like Spinozist Marxism, than a field of intersecting problems and questions. In some sense it is possible to even map out the way in which different Marxists draw from different elements of Marx (and Spinoza) creating different articulations of the relations which intersect with different problems in the critique of capitalism. For Louis Althusser the important parts of Spinoza are the critique of the imagination (found in the Appendix to Part One of the Ethics), the theory of the different types of knowledge (IIP40Schol), as well as "God is the immanent, not the transitive cause of all things" (IIP18). Of course such a list begins to reflect divisions and tensions in Althusser's writing: the imagination is integral to his theory of ideology, immanent causality to his understanding of structure and the mode of production, while the different types of knowledge persists throughout Althusser's writing as a kind of philosophy of philosophical practice. While for Frédéric Lordon the central thesis of Spinoza is less epistemological or ontological than it is anthropological. It is the centrality of desire, "as the very essence of man, insofar as it is determined from any affection, to do something," coupled with the fundamental misrecognition of that desire, the fundamental illusion of a free choice which leads the infant to believe it freely wants milk, and more to the point, the worker to believe that he or she freely wants to work. For Etienne Balibar the central thesis is perhaps Proposition 37 of Part IV of the Ethics, and more importantly its two demonstrations which map out the constitution of a real, or rational, and imagined, or affective basis of sociality.  We could also flip this formulation, asking not what aspect, or proposition from Spinoza plays a central role, but what problem from Marx. Ideology can already be seen to be the answer in the case of Althusser (and a different way in Lordon and Balibar), while for Antonio Negri the connection passes through production, through the question of what does it mean to think of history and society as something that is produced and reproduced through our action and lives. A different focus on labor, or praxis can be found in André Tosel, whose work is an attempt to think through what it means to think of praxis as poeisis and poeisis as praxis, making as doing and doing as making. This Marxist problem if fundamentally informed by the Spinozist idea that every finite thing, every mode, acts, or rather operates in and through other modes.The list goes on, and one could map out a whole set of definitions of Spinozist Marxism which would be different intersections of propositions and problems from each.  The question I have been thinking about is given this field in which every position has already in some sense been occupied how is it possible to make a new intervention. Or put differently what particular proposition and what particular problem does The Double Shift: Spinoza and Marx on the Politics of Work articulate, or think together. If I had to pick one I would say that it is the famous, or infamous Proposition 7 from Part Two, "The the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things." Of course this claim is something that every interpretation of Spinoza must ultimately wrestle with, and one could chart out the various neo-Spinozisms in terms of how they make sense of the identity and difference of things and ideas, bodies and minds. To be more specific I would say that it is a matter of thinking this as a formulation of ideology. As I write in the book,  "...Grasped in terms of a post-Spinozist social theory, it is possible to argue that Spinoza's formulation can productively paired with Marx's assertion of the identity of consciousness and life. Ideas and the imagination, like bodies and desires, must be grasped in terms of both of their internal striving, their consistency, and of their finitude, their determination. Contrary to a long-standing bias in the history of philosophy to treat ideas and things as two fundamentally different orders of reality, Spinoza posits a fundamental identity of thought and existence—, an identity that, paradoxically, makes it possible to grasp their points of divergence and intersection. Of course, as I have already argued, the very idea of ideology necessarily presupposes a difference as well as an identity; in order to be the ruling ideas, the concepts and narratives that rule ideas must be different from the experience and conditions they rule over in order to be the ruling ideas, but, at the same time, they must be produced by those conditions. There is a limited efficacy of true ideas insofar as they are true; ideas do not have effects on their own, but require conditions in order to exist and be disseminated. Spinoza's assertion regarding true ideas can be understood as a mirror image of Marx's claim regarding ideology. As Étienne Balibar describes the structure of ideology in The German Ideology,"The ideological mechanism, which can equally be read as a social process, will come to be seen as an astonishing conversion of impotence into domination: the abstraction of consciousness, which is an expression of consciousness's incapacity to act in reality … becomes the source of power precisely because it is "'autonomized." Contrary to his critical contemporaries, such as Feuerbach and Stirner, who believed in the power of ideas, and thus the weapon of criticism, Marx underscores that ideas only have power, only have effects, under particular material conditions that give some no time to think and others the means to spread and disseminate their ideas. Ideas have a causality that is not derived not from them as ideas, but from the social relations that produce and circulate them."First this has to be thought of in terms of identity, ideas are nothing other than the existing relation between things, the different material relations expressed differently. In other words, to quickly allude to something that the book develops over a few pages, the idea that there is ethical and moral worth to work, that have "grind" mindset, are the key to not only material success but spiritual worth as well, is nothing other than the material conditions, precarity, gig economy, and so on, rendered in ideal or conceptual forms. A person who feels that their self value and self worth can be measured in terms of how much they work is nothing other than the consciousness of labor power itself. In other words, the order and connection of ideology is the same as the order and connection of exploitation. Just as Spinoza argues that desire is nothing other than an idea of our appetite, the body's needs in mental form, our ideas about work, which make it the key to worth and self-value, are nothing other than our position within the economy in material form. (This is something central to another Marxist/Spinozist thinker, Franck Fischbach, who has argued that the conditions of intellectual life are the same as that of material life. As Fischbach writes, "If it is true that 'the production of ideas, of ideas, representations and consciousness (...) is the language of real life" then the production of ideologies, of inadequate representations, is the language of life incomplete, inadequate, and mutilated." Mind and body are two different ways of grasping the same thing. 

Such a formulation seems crude, deterministic, and in some sense more vulgar than the most vulgar of materialisms; it posits us all as spiritual automatons whose thoughts and ideas do nothing more than express, in a different attribute, what is already given in our material condition, in the relations of bodies. Things are complicated quite a bit by subsequent propositions which assert that only a body can affect or determine a body and only an idea can affect or determine an idea. The assertion of identity, ideas and things, mind and body, as two different ways of looking at the same thing, has as it paradoxical corollary the assertion of difference, mind and body as two fundamentally different ways of acting and reacting, each with their own causal orders and connections that are entirely independent. This is a particular dense metaphysical knot of identity and difference, but I am more interested in how it plays out practically, politically, as a way of thinking about ideas and bodies, base and superstructure Much could be said about the way this plays out in Spinoza's text, especially in Part IV of the Ethics, to underscore the limited efficacy of the true insofar as it is true, of the way in which ideas cannot change the world without becoming lived in bodies. As I argue in the book (following Tosel) Spinoza's formulation makes it possible to think of the particular double determination of ideas and bodies. That each are in some sense determined by being reflections of the same thing, the same relations, but are also determined in a particular manner by other ideas or other bodies. In other words, returning to the problem of the book, as much as the centrality of work as that which give people meaning and value can be understood to be just capitalism rendered into an idea it is also an effect of a long series of transformations within the realm of ideas from the protestant revolution onward. To put it bluntly the response to the long debate between Marx and Weber, between material determination and cultural history, is quite simply, "Why Not Both." Although to be honest I am more interested in the way this makes it possible to understand the present than debates in intellectual history. "via GIPHYTo quote The Double Shift again: "As I have argued, these two aspects are, in some sense, two different ways of looking at the same thing, the same social relation, grasped in terms of bodies and their coordination and minds and their automation. However, they also function in different ways of understanding the orientation of desire. In the first, it is imposed through necessity; as selling one's labor power becomes the only condition of survival, living is aligned with making a living through wage labor. Wage labor appears to be the only way to make a living because all other ways are effaced. The constraints of society appear less as particular institutions, regimes of accumulation, and social relations, but as the way things must be; their historicity and contingency are effaced in the present order. This structural condition is supplemented by an ideological dimension insisting that not only that one must one identify with their job, find their passion in their labor, but that such a condition is also to be actively desired. Having to work, to dedicate oneself entirely to work, is presented twice, as it were—once as a necessary condition for survival and the second time as aspiration integral to one's identity. To frame it according to the division of work and action, we could argue that work is defined as both production and action, both as the constraint of necessity tied to survival and something freely undertaken to identify and distinguish oneself. The particular double determination in capitalist society is one in which work vacillates between a necessary fact of life to an object of desire, from making a living to finding meaning. The often-asked question,  "What do you do for a living?" vacillates between these two senses; at once,, it indicates something of necessity, of one's economic situation, and freedom, one's supposedly chosen path in life. It is both what one has to do and who one is. Work as necessity and work as subjectivity, as body and as mind, do not just coexist as two different ways of grasping the same thing, but are subject to their own logic of alternation as material necessity and ideological meaning reinforce and also undermine each other." Double determination makes it possible to think at once of our particular "bondage," to use Spinoza's term, caught both in a set of material relations, namely capitalism, that reduce us to labor power, and intellectual traditions which express the same conditions through the ideological terms of morality, responsibility, and individuality. Transformation entails transforming each. There is a limited efficacy of criticism so long as it just remains criticism (of course the corollary is that there a limited efficacy of practice as practice). It is a matter of linking together the transformation of material conditions and intellectual concepts, or, what people used to call Praxis. 

Kate Wand invites Phil Magness to discuss the origins of critical theory, which is a neo-Marxist school of thought born in the Frankfurt School in 1923.

English

Mit:

Minna Ålander, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki
Carmen Descamps, Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft, Brüssel
Manuel Müller, Finnish Institute of International Affairs / Der (europäische) Föderalist, Helsinki
Julian Plottka, Universität Passau / Universität Bonn

Dieses Gespräch entstand als Online-Chat und wurde redaktionell bearbeitet.

This article is based on research presented at the UACES Graduate Forum 2023 (8-9 June, at IBEI, Barcelona).
The post A Neo-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Perspective on the Smart Specialisation Strategy of the European Union appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

This article is based on research presented at the UACES Graduate Forum 2023 (8-9 June, at IBEI, Barcelona).
The post A Neo-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Perspective on the Smart Specialisation Strategy of the European Union appeared first on Crossroads Europe.

From a Justice Department press release dated Oct. 24, but just posted on Westlaw a few days ago: An Ohio man pleaded guilty yesterday to violating the Church Arson Prevention Act and to using fire and explosives to commit a felony, all in connection with his attempt to burn down a church because of the…

Deutsch


With:

Minna Ålander, Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki
Carmen Descamps, German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW), Brussels
Manuel Müller, Finnish Institute of International Affairs / Der (europäische) Föderalist, Helsinki
Julian Plottka, University of Passau / University of Bonn

This conversation was conducted as an online chat in German.

Mikayla Tillery reviews Kevin Okoth's Red Africa: Reclaiming Revolutionary Black Politics. She delves into Okoth's incisive critique of Afro-pessimism, Negritude, and the academic misinterpretations of Franz Fanon. Tillery discusses Okoth's arguments against the idea that Marxism is Eurocentric by examining the historical suppression of Marxism in Kenya. She reveals how Okoth highlights the contributions of black revolutionaries and reframes Marxism as a potent force for decolonisation and anti-imperialism.
The post Time to reclaim black revolutionary politics appeared first on ROAPE.