Hi Daniel, agreed that it's quite unsurprising that the 'optimism' of postmarxists would give way to pessimism by post-postmarxists once it becomes clear that the 'social forces' the previous crop fixated on doesn't deliver (either), nor that post-scarce luxury space communism and "post-scarce individualist" billionaire fantasies are dominant fantasies even on the sorta/circumscribedly-pro-emancipation side of the political spectrum. That said, I'm not really convinced that it's helpful to take this framework very seriously, both because of the appeal of epicycles and because it imo starts from a rotten foundation, which is partly due to what you point to -- the giving up on the wc as the revolutionary subject under capitalism.
That giving up (mainly by people who are intensely attracted to meritocratic ideals without dealing with the fact that 'meritocracy' is extremely copacetic with class rule) is certainly a big part of it. But imo the issue runs deeper still, and it relates to the fact that we only really talk about what we think of as the socially dominant classes as they've been theorized by people describing how capitalist formations work. I think this narrowing is very unwise, as it's very likely to blind us to the importance and persistence of other dynamics (such as familial private ones).
Related to this, I've also written about (embracing) meritocracy as a problem for the left, which I think helps explain why aristocratic and conservative tendencies are so easily reconciled with 'liberalism' -> https://beyondmeritocracy.info/
Looking forward to your future book about class struggle, and thanks for writing. :)
I think it's still capitalism but hypercapitalism produces something like neo-fuedalism. Also, fuedal characteristcs was partly incorporated into capitalism from the beginning. The rub is that fuedalism itself is a contested category and modern historians increasingly doubt it's validity as a category.
Hi Daniel, agreed that it's quite unsurprising that the 'optimism' of postmarxists would give way to pessimism by post-postmarxists once it becomes clear that the 'social forces' the previous crop fixated on doesn't deliver (either), nor that post-scarce luxury space communism and "post-scarce individualist" billionaire fantasies are dominant fantasies even on the sorta/circumscribedly-pro-emancipation side of the political spectrum. That said, I'm not really convinced that it's helpful to take this framework very seriously, both because of the appeal of epicycles and because it imo starts from a rotten foundation, which is partly due to what you point to -- the giving up on the wc as the revolutionary subject under capitalism.
That giving up (mainly by people who are intensely attracted to meritocratic ideals without dealing with the fact that 'meritocracy' is extremely copacetic with class rule) is certainly a big part of it. But imo the issue runs deeper still, and it relates to the fact that we only really talk about what we think of as the socially dominant classes as they've been theorized by people describing how capitalist formations work. I think this narrowing is very unwise, as it's very likely to blind us to the importance and persistence of other dynamics (such as familial private ones).
I've tried to make the case for a 'multidimensional' class analysis and its importance for producing working class unity here -> https://beyondmeritocracy.info/blog/on-capitalism-and-class-rule
Related to this, I've also written about (embracing) meritocracy as a problem for the left, which I think helps explain why aristocratic and conservative tendencies are so easily reconciled with 'liberalism' -> https://beyondmeritocracy.info/
Looking forward to your future book about class struggle, and thanks for writing. :)
I think it's still capitalism but hypercapitalism produces something like neo-fuedalism. Also, fuedal characteristcs was partly incorporated into capitalism from the beginning. The rub is that fuedalism itself is a contested category and modern historians increasingly doubt it's validity as a category.
Is going beyond the humanist limits of the good and the rational & towards collective enjoyment a form of simply universalism or already communist?