Link to an article by Rob Urie:
Link to a review by Fabian Van Onzen of the book Value and Crisis: Essays on Labour, Money and Contemporary Capitalism (2019) by Alfredo Saad-Filho:
Bonus links: Review of Making Money and “How Decades of Neoliberalism Led to the Era of Right-Wing Populism” (this article reviews another book on the same topic but is rather questionably historicist, though it is absolutely correct to note that “all policies — whether statist or neoliberal — are normative”)
Link to a review by Sam Husseini:
Link to an article by Julian Paul Merrill:
This is a great analysis of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air!
Link to an interview with Edgar Cabanas & Eva Illouz, conducted by David Broder, regarding their book Manufacturing Happy Citizens: How the Science and Industry of Happiness Control our Lives (2019):
Link to an article by Matt Dimick:
This critique doesn’t even really get to the big problem of trade union chauvinism.
Link to an article by Michael Hudson:
Bonus link: The State and Revolution
Link to an article by Gregory H. Shill:
Link to an article by Oliver Boyd-Barrett:
Link to an article by Christine MacDonald:
This article was published on the magazine In These Times’ web site. The publication is populist, meaning that it constantly strives to demonize its political opponents and construct an enemy. Aside from that, what the article explains about climate change deniers is that they are engaged in what Jacques Lacan called “university discourse” in order to defend a particular social structure. Bruce Fink explained this concept of “university discourse” in his book The Lacanian Subject (1995):
“the university is an arm of capitalist production (or of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ as it was called . . . ), suggesting that the truth hidden behind the university discourse is, after all, the master signifier. Knowledge here interrogates surplus value (the product of capitalist economies, which takes the form of a loss or subtraction of value from the worker) and rationalizes or justifies it.” (p. 132).
“Working in the service of the master signifier, more or less any kind of argument will do, as long as it takes on the guise of reason and rationality.” (p. 133).
Populists generally avoid getting into these issues, because to do so would tend to reveal the large degree of agreement between them and the political far right. But this article is still a good example of how the right doesn’t care about making “good” arguments as long as they serve their desired (if unstated) social arrangement.