Appreciate this — the neo-Kantian pitfall is real and I think it maps onto something happening in DSA politics right now more directly than it might seem. The centrist tendency's framework is essentially neo-Kantian in structure: universal moral imperatives (nonviolence, broad coalitions, "not alienating people") deployed as regulative ideals that end up disciplining the left rather than confronting capital. The Kantian move is always to legislate the conditions of legitimate action *before* the action occurs, which in practice means the action never occurs on terms that threaten anything.
Curious whether you see Karatani's Mode D as a way out of this or just a more sophisticated version of the same trap. The question I keep coming back to is whether any theoretical framework that begins from the normative can produce a politics adequate to a moment where the state is prosecuting printers and zine distributors as terrorists.
Interesting read … I’ve always found the mashup of Marxism and kantianism to be fundamentally problematic due to the historicism of Marx and Engels. They adopt the tragic reading of moral thought that Hegel pushes as a critique of kants moral thought. Yet the lack of a philosophy of mind in Marxism means kantianism and freudianism alike can solve unanswered problems
Great read. Might end up referencing this in my thesis. I was wondering why there’s no mention of Sohn-Rethel? He seems quite relevant in this context.
I was excited to read this essay, and I think your reading did justice Karatani. That said, I’m not sure I see a substantive critique here.
On the questions of scalability and consciousness-raising: isn’t scalability and mass consciousness always the question of struggle? In that sense, I’m not sure the problem is unique to Karatani’s framework. What the modes of exchange and Mode D seem to offer, at least to me, is a way of thinking beyond the circles we’re usually accustomed to running in.
On state power, Karatani seems quite clear: seizing state power as a revolutionary method will not work. To claim otherwise is to ignore the structural tendencies of the state (Mode B). Personally, I think his insistence on this point is important. We are too easily lured into the political field as it is laid out for us by liberal capitalism.
At the same time, Mode D is a regulative idea, so the tactical implications remain open to interpretation as long as we are clear about the purpose.
I’ll go looking for your 2024 essay to see whether you develop the critique more there, but I’d also be curious to hear you lay it out a bit more fully here if you haven’t already.
Appreciate this — the neo-Kantian pitfall is real and I think it maps onto something happening in DSA politics right now more directly than it might seem. The centrist tendency's framework is essentially neo-Kantian in structure: universal moral imperatives (nonviolence, broad coalitions, "not alienating people") deployed as regulative ideals that end up disciplining the left rather than confronting capital. The Kantian move is always to legislate the conditions of legitimate action *before* the action occurs, which in practice means the action never occurs on terms that threaten anything.
Curious whether you see Karatani's Mode D as a way out of this or just a more sophisticated version of the same trap. The question I keep coming back to is whether any theoretical framework that begins from the normative can produce a politics adequate to a moment where the state is prosecuting printers and zine distributors as terrorists.
Super interesting
Interesting read … I’ve always found the mashup of Marxism and kantianism to be fundamentally problematic due to the historicism of Marx and Engels. They adopt the tragic reading of moral thought that Hegel pushes as a critique of kants moral thought. Yet the lack of a philosophy of mind in Marxism means kantianism and freudianism alike can solve unanswered problems
Great read. Might end up referencing this in my thesis. I was wondering why there’s no mention of Sohn-Rethel? He seems quite relevant in this context.
I was excited to read this essay, and I think your reading did justice Karatani. That said, I’m not sure I see a substantive critique here.
On the questions of scalability and consciousness-raising: isn’t scalability and mass consciousness always the question of struggle? In that sense, I’m not sure the problem is unique to Karatani’s framework. What the modes of exchange and Mode D seem to offer, at least to me, is a way of thinking beyond the circles we’re usually accustomed to running in.
On state power, Karatani seems quite clear: seizing state power as a revolutionary method will not work. To claim otherwise is to ignore the structural tendencies of the state (Mode B). Personally, I think his insistence on this point is important. We are too easily lured into the political field as it is laid out for us by liberal capitalism.
At the same time, Mode D is a regulative idea, so the tactical implications remain open to interpretation as long as we are clear about the purpose.
I’ll go looking for your 2024 essay to see whether you develop the critique more there, but I’d also be curious to hear you lay it out a bit more fully here if you haven’t already.