Pub Date : 2023-01-18DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2022.2157129
T. Jelfs
{"title":"Breaking the Impasse: Electoral Politics, Mass Action, and the New Socialist Movement in the United States","authors":"T. Jelfs","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2022.2157129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2022.2157129","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"22 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72412306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-15DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2022.2121578
I. Hedges
{"title":"A Land with a People: Palestinians and Jews Confront Zionism","authors":"I. Hedges","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2022.2121578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2022.2121578","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88954569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-12DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2022.2122352
James H. Stam
{"title":"Romantic Anti-Capitalism and Nature: The Enchanted Garden","authors":"James H. Stam","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2022.2122352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2022.2122352","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78948687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-10DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2022.2131234
V. Wallis
{"title":"The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex","authors":"V. Wallis","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2022.2131234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2022.2131234","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81581569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-18DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2021.2085490
Marco Pompe
{"title":"Towards a Concept of Emancipation for a Diverse Left: Reflecting on My Practice","authors":"Marco Pompe","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2021.2085490","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2085490","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"103 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72914259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2021.2044239
E. Bell
Over the past few decades, neoliberalism has achieved hegemonic status. Although it has constantly mutated and evolved to adapt to changing political conjunctures, it has become dominant not just as an elite political project but as a new common sense, or doxa (Bourdieu [1990] 2012: 313). Consumerism and the adulation of wealth and entrepreneurialism have become so firmly anchored in the popular common sense that it is hard to imagine any alternative. Neoliberalism has successfully promoted corporate and private interests over the collective via processes of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation, shifting power back to the already rich and powerful, whilst shoring up the legitimacy of its project by demonising and disciplining those who refuse to internalise the neoliberal ideal of the entrepreneurial, independent consumer. Stuart Hall, following Gramsci, reminds us that hegemony is never complete or permanent – the hegemonic project of neoliberalism must be constantly “renewed and revised” – so, although neoliberalism itself is in crisis, the hegemonic project of neoliberalism is ongoing (Hall 2011). There are nonetheless signs that the neoliberal hegemony established in the 1980s is currently facing similar challenges to those faced by social democracy forty years ago, notably regarding the current form of the British state, economic management, access to citizenship, the changing global order and political representation (as highlighted by Gamble 1994). Taken together, this article argues that Britain’s current economic and political crises can be seen to constitute a conjunctural crisis whereby consent for the current hegemony has become tenuous (Jefferson 2014). It then moves on to discussing the possible responses to that crisis. Successive governments from Thatcher to Johnson respond to crisis by resorting to authoritarian populism to build up hegemony (Hall et al. 1978), further reinforcing Socialism and Democracy, 2021 Vol. 35, Nos. 2–3, 73–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2044239
在过去的几十年里，新自由主义取得了霸权地位。尽管它不断地突变和演变以适应不断变化的政治形势，但它不仅作为一种精英政治项目，而且作为一种新的常识或doxa而占据主导地位(Bourdieu[1990] 2012: 313)。消费主义、对财富和企业家精神的奉承已经如此牢固地根植于大众的常识中，以至于很难想象还有其他选择。新自由主义通过放松管制、私有化和市场化的过程，成功地将企业和私人利益置于集体利益之上，将权力转移回已经富有和强大的人手中，同时通过妖魔化和惩戒那些拒绝将创业、独立消费者的新自由主义理想内化的人，来支撑其项目的合法性。继葛兰西之后，斯图亚特·霍尔(Stuart Hall)提醒我们，霸权从来都不是完整的或永久的——新自由主义的霸权工程必须不断地“更新和修正”——因此，尽管新自由主义本身处于危机之中，但新自由主义的霸权工程仍在进行中(Hall 2011)。尽管如此，仍有迹象表明，建立于20世纪80年代的新自由主义霸权目前正面临着与40年前社会民主主义所面临的类似的挑战，特别是在英国国家的当前形式、经济管理、获得公民身份、不断变化的全球秩序和政治代表性方面(如甘布尔1994年所强调的)。综上所述，本文认为，英国当前的经济和政治危机可以被视为构成了一场经济危机，人们对当前霸权的认同已经变得脆弱(Jefferson 2014)。然后讨论了应对危机的可能措施。从撒切尔到约翰逊的历届政府通过诉诸威权民粹主义来建立霸权来应对危机(Hall et al. 1978)，进一步加强了《社会主义与民主》，2021年第35卷，第2-3期，73-96期，https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2044239
{"title":"Rethinking Power: Responding to the Crisis of Neoliberal Hegemony?","authors":"E. Bell","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2021.2044239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2044239","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past few decades, neoliberalism has achieved hegemonic status. Although it has constantly mutated and evolved to adapt to changing political conjunctures, it has become dominant not just as an elite political project but as a new common sense, or doxa (Bourdieu [1990] 2012: 313). Consumerism and the adulation of wealth and entrepreneurialism have become so firmly anchored in the popular common sense that it is hard to imagine any alternative. Neoliberalism has successfully promoted corporate and private interests over the collective via processes of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation, shifting power back to the already rich and powerful, whilst shoring up the legitimacy of its project by demonising and disciplining those who refuse to internalise the neoliberal ideal of the entrepreneurial, independent consumer. Stuart Hall, following Gramsci, reminds us that hegemony is never complete or permanent – the hegemonic project of neoliberalism must be constantly “renewed and revised” – so, although neoliberalism itself is in crisis, the hegemonic project of neoliberalism is ongoing (Hall 2011). There are nonetheless signs that the neoliberal hegemony established in the 1980s is currently facing similar challenges to those faced by social democracy forty years ago, notably regarding the current form of the British state, economic management, access to citizenship, the changing global order and political representation (as highlighted by Gamble 1994). Taken together, this article argues that Britain’s current economic and political crises can be seen to constitute a conjunctural crisis whereby consent for the current hegemony has become tenuous (Jefferson 2014). It then moves on to discussing the possible responses to that crisis. Successive governments from Thatcher to Johnson respond to crisis by resorting to authoritarian populism to build up hegemony (Hall et al. 1978), further reinforcing Socialism and Democracy, 2021 Vol. 35, Nos. 2–3, 73–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2044239","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"3 1","pages":"73 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78615823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2021.2110522
M. Callahan, H. Sheehan
Social disintegration and immiseration continue apace with a corresponding intellectual disarray. Reasons to abolish capitalism multiply daily, while Reason is treated as if it were a devious plot. How did we arrive at this juncture and what tools do we have to both apprehend reality and organize collectively to change it? Since the late 1970s, as the last waves of revolution receded, poststructuralism, postmodernism, and identity-based radicalism positioned themselves not only as the best means by which to challenge authority and bring about change, but more specifically, to criticize Marx and Engels and the presumed failures of the revolutions of the last century. It is no accident that philosophy, science and rational thought have also been targeted since they were the very means these revolutions employed to achieve their ends. Meanwhile, the capitalist juggernaut advances unimpeded by such critical theory, indeed capitalism appears to thrive on it. The resulting confusion nonetheless provides an opportunity to re-examine fundamental premises and definitions. I asked Helena Sheehan for this interview because her formal training in philosophy combines with her years of active political engagement to offer a perspective from which to assess our current dilemmas. Mat Callahan: Often, today, I hear philosophy used as if it was the same as “opinion”. Everyone has their own philosophy and can mean by that whatever they wish. At the same time, science is often said to have made philosophy obsolete or has taken over its function as a method for apprehending reality. What then is the philosophy of science? Helena Sheehan: Different people, including different philosophers, define philosophy in different ways. I use it to mean world view, a set of underlying beliefs about the world centred on the core questions of the centuries, such as: the question of whether phenomena can be explained in terms of natural forces alone or whether appeal to supernatural forces can be justified (typically the question of belief in the existence of God) or the question of whether phenomena are interconnected in a web of causality or events are disconnected and Socialism and Democracy, 2021 Vol. 35, Nos. 2–3, 38–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2110522
{"title":"Sophistry, Politics and Philosophy","authors":"M. Callahan, H. Sheehan","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2021.2110522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2110522","url":null,"abstract":"Social disintegration and immiseration continue apace with a corresponding intellectual disarray. Reasons to abolish capitalism multiply daily, while Reason is treated as if it were a devious plot. How did we arrive at this juncture and what tools do we have to both apprehend reality and organize collectively to change it? Since the late 1970s, as the last waves of revolution receded, poststructuralism, postmodernism, and identity-based radicalism positioned themselves not only as the best means by which to challenge authority and bring about change, but more specifically, to criticize Marx and Engels and the presumed failures of the revolutions of the last century. It is no accident that philosophy, science and rational thought have also been targeted since they were the very means these revolutions employed to achieve their ends. Meanwhile, the capitalist juggernaut advances unimpeded by such critical theory, indeed capitalism appears to thrive on it. The resulting confusion nonetheless provides an opportunity to re-examine fundamental premises and definitions. I asked Helena Sheehan for this interview because her formal training in philosophy combines with her years of active political engagement to offer a perspective from which to assess our current dilemmas. Mat Callahan: Often, today, I hear philosophy used as if it was the same as “opinion”. Everyone has their own philosophy and can mean by that whatever they wish. At the same time, science is often said to have made philosophy obsolete or has taken over its function as a method for apprehending reality. What then is the philosophy of science? Helena Sheehan: Different people, including different philosophers, define philosophy in different ways. I use it to mean world view, a set of underlying beliefs about the world centred on the core questions of the centuries, such as: the question of whether phenomena can be explained in terms of natural forces alone or whether appeal to supernatural forces can be justified (typically the question of belief in the existence of God) or the question of whether phenomena are interconnected in a web of causality or events are disconnected and Socialism and Democracy, 2021 Vol. 35, Nos. 2–3, 38–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2110522","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"15 1","pages":"38 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78444302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/08854300.2021.2095845
D. Egan
these are theological concepts that Benjamin mobilized in the name of a future that might transcend our fallen modernity – a future he thought he glimpsed in Moscow – and it represents what we might call, after Adorno, his negative dialectics, his view of a modern world dominated by an “impoverishment of contemporary experience” and a set of technological innovations that might, nevertheless, help overcome that impoverishment (245). All of this, of course, places Benjamin squarely within the tradition of Western Marxism as defined by Perry Anderson, with its distance from actual politics, a fact Jameson acknowledges. Whether we find this form of cultural analysis to be satisfactory “depends very much on the historical value one attaches to culture and on the way in which superstructures are seen as an active part of the mode of production” (30–31). Jameson’s method suggests another response: even the most seemingly abstract theorizing can find its politics when properly historicized. One of Benjamin’s most important concepts is the dialectical image – the process by which a moment from the past is blasted out of the ideological continuity of history due to its relation to our own time – which helps us see how Benjamin’s moment, with its struggle over the fate of the masses, resonates with our own of competing right and left populisms. If we agree with Jameson that “socialism... is a theory and a politics of the productive uses of the ever-heightening power of the forces of production,” then we can see Benjamin’s work – and ultimately Jameson’s own – as an analogous effort to seize the forces of cultural production for a future that is in no way guaranteed (206).
{"title":"Soldiers of the Revolution: The Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune","authors":"D. Egan","doi":"10.1080/08854300.2021.2095845","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2021.2095845","url":null,"abstract":"these are theological concepts that Benjamin mobilized in the name of a future that might transcend our fallen modernity – a future he thought he glimpsed in Moscow – and it represents what we might call, after Adorno, his negative dialectics, his view of a modern world dominated by an “impoverishment of contemporary experience” and a set of technological innovations that might, nevertheless, help overcome that impoverishment (245). All of this, of course, places Benjamin squarely within the tradition of Western Marxism as defined by Perry Anderson, with its distance from actual politics, a fact Jameson acknowledges. Whether we find this form of cultural analysis to be satisfactory “depends very much on the historical value one attaches to culture and on the way in which superstructures are seen as an active part of the mode of production” (30–31). Jameson’s method suggests another response: even the most seemingly abstract theorizing can find its politics when properly historicized. One of Benjamin’s most important concepts is the dialectical image – the process by which a moment from the past is blasted out of the ideological continuity of history due to its relation to our own time – which helps us see how Benjamin’s moment, with its struggle over the fate of the masses, resonates with our own of competing right and left populisms. If we agree with Jameson that “socialism... is a theory and a politics of the productive uses of the ever-heightening power of the forces of production,” then we can see Benjamin’s work – and ultimately Jameson’s own – as an analogous effort to seize the forces of cultural production for a future that is in no way guaranteed (206).","PeriodicalId":40061,"journal":{"name":"Socialism and Democracy","volume":"18 1","pages":"426 - 430"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75889281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：