Link to an article by John Steppling:
“Before the Law”
While fairly detailed in its analysis and proffered support, the asserted parallels with fascist regimes of the past aren’t fully convincing. Does the current moment not have neo-feudalist (or neo-Bonapartist) aspects? Doesn’t the present moment have some unique features without complete historical precedent?
Bonus link: The Courts Are Political
Link to a review by Landon Frim & Harrison Fluss of Steven Pinker‘s book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (2018):
“Steven Pinker: False Friend of the Enlightenment”
This is a great tear-down of Pinker’s thinking, which is problematic because of how basically insipid it is as mere status quo boosterism.
Bonus links: Review of The Great Leveler and Review of Domenico Losurdo’s Liberalism: A Counter-History and Slavoj Žižek On Political Struggle and Review of Making Money
“in the analysis of ideology, it is not simply a matter of seeing which account of reality best matches the ‘facts’, with the one that is closest being the least biased and therefore the best. As soon as the facts are determined, we have already — whether we know it or not — made our choice; we are already within one ideological system or another. The real dispute has already taken place over what is to count as the facts, which facts are relevant, and so on.”
Rex Butler, “What Is a Master-Signifier”
Link to an article by Benjamin Fogel:
Curiously, while the author says moralism isn’t an answer, his argument is essentially moral! He really is saying mere moralistic, individualistic finger-wagging won’t convince political opponents to change their own ways, which is a tactical argument that recognizes that the problem does not lie at an individual level and therefore cannot be solved at the individual level either but glosses over normative/ideological (moral) bases for structural/institutional action. But isn’t the author simply arguing that instead of criminalizing the political left through “anti-corruption” laws such policies should instead criminalize the political right? He offers no real explicit argument to this effect, relying instead on implicit ideology and morality/ethics. This is about a political struggle for hegemony, making certain specific procedural/tactical suggestions along the lines of Rosa Luxembourg’s famous “socialism or barbarism” maxim.
Bonus links: Slavoj Žižek On Political Struggle (technocrats as defenders of hierarchy) and Slavoj Žižek on Populism (populists) and Ibi Rhodus, Ibi Saltus! Quote (ethics/morals are ultimately political)