Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/199/ Aufhebonus Bonus (June) (Patreon)

Published:
2021-06-22 06:01:01
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

We take your questions, comments & criticisms.

On this Aufhebonus Bonus, we discuss whether unions are still capable of fighting for their members; the Arab-Israeli conflict at the End of History; a lot more on the 'PMC debate'; plus: whether Phil is "reductionist in the service of his own prejudices". 

Files

Comments

Sensible Captain

Freedom Day is a great title. Especially because I could not imagine Germans ever coming up with such a daring title. They never would. Unlike even the UK government, they perceive the restrictions as a gift - a gift to be cherished and celebrated. They could not imagine freedom being a desirable thing.

Davka Smolah Collective

Oh hey thanks, and it's ok that you pronounced my name in the European way (he/him though :-p). "Adhocracy" comes from Cory Doctorow. Funnily enough, just last night (over drinks, hence my just remembering it) I was discussing politics with some friends, and they mentioned that they actually prefer *not* to charge dues for what they're organizing, precisely because it perversely incentivizes an organization to collect paper members as a funding base for the active leadership.

Andrea

Hi so, hum... Just a little clarification about my comment about reductionism and prejudices. By prejudices I meant regarding the 68 movement and various movements that maintain its spirit. Sometimes it seems to me there is a really unnecessary excess in rancor towards them on your part. And, I would say, an excess in conflating every movement and everyone who participate in those movements as some kind of enemies, even when many of those who participate in those movements are just people who try to find a way to give sense of their discontent and the impulse to change a world that is perceived as unjust. I would say we agree those movements and those people are in many ways wrong, but I disagree with Phil's total rejection and his putting them in the side of the enemy. This is what I meant by prejudices. And it is "usual" in the sense that as far as I know it is quite a recurring theme in your podcast. And it seemed to me that citing Pasolini's poem in that sense was an unfair way to use him to defend that "prejudice". Regarding the 68 movement, this is where "reductionism" is concerned. 68 was not the same everywhere. The Italian 68 (that begins before that year, and goes far beyond that moment) was not the same as the 68 of the anglophone world. It was not even the same as the french 68, nor the German one. 68 in Mexico and the third world was also not the same as the 68 in the first world. And "reducing" the Italian 68 to the American or UK 68 is, in my opinion, a mistake. That is what I *thought* was happening there, and (if that may be of interest to you) I had that impression of flattening to anglophone-world horizon of meaning a bunch of times in your podcast. Maybe I was wrong, and Phil clarified that, so, I am sorry if I misinterpreted his argument. In my defense, his brief mentioning of Pasolini actually completely retraced the structure of right wing's (I mean fascist, *real actual fascists that grew out of the fascist party*) use of Pasolini's poem in Italy, a couple of years ago. So, I am sorry if I snapped about that. It was quite a surprise to hear those arguments in another language. I am not a native english speaker so I know my English can appear convoluted or simply weird, sorry about that too. I am glad you took the time to read the article I linked though. I listen to your podcast regularly with pleasure, I thought I could comment about something I disagree with and I was glad to listen to the response. So yeah, great work. Sorry for the "outrage" though.

Paul Brewer

Many thanks for commenting on my comment about the Endnotes Collective episode. I have to say I thought there were several moments in this episode where I perceived the outlines of the ten points from a ‘Bungaist Manifesto’, although I don’t think this is the space to synthesise this. The one thing I would say is that from those moments it seems a long-term project, one that at my age I am unlikely to see many fruits from. On my mentioning AJP Taylor, he came to mind because the Origins book Phil talks about covers the same events as Carr’s Crisis, but written at a further remove and with less basis in direct participation. However, at least for the older layperson it might have been the more familiar text owing to Taylor’s televised celebrity, and I was curious about an expert’s possible comparison of the two.

Nicholas CLARK

Hey thank you for your response to my pseudo-question! I’d written out a comment but it got deleted, but I’ll try and rephrase it succinctly. One thing that I think Singapore has done very successfully is that it has given people a feeling of civic participation - through the means you outlined (housing, people’s associations, etc.), but also more overt instances of institutional reincorporation. I think what sets this apart from somewhere like Hong Kong in particular is institutional ‘reincorporation’ includes young people the most, and avoids the antagonisms between institutions and youth who may well feel they don’t have a future. You see this in the institution of National Service (which, although a foreigner myself, my experience serving here suggests it’s just as much a civic rite of passage as a defensive posture), which certainly solves the problem of disaffected and unemployed young men for at least two years. This also acts to quell antagonisms between civil society and law enforcement to a significant extent (given say, how much of the police force is made up of conscripts, which for a young person in a small country may very well be your neighbours, classmates, and friends). Another means is a rigorous education system that theoretically channels at least a portion of “the best and brightest” into the civil service and broader public sector, via a particularly generous system of scholarships and awards. Government scholars, after going abroad to study PPE at Oxbridge or the Ivy League or whatever else, will return to Singapore and be bonded to the public sector for a fairly lengthy amount of time. While this is a privileged and small group, the more radical class vanguard of change you saw in Hong Kong was, broadly, pro-democracy, western-educated, university students. Young people in Singapore for a host of other reasons (but primarily a lack of any sort of material urgency), feel that they have a future here in a way I suspect most young people in Hong Kong don’t.