Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • wlop 71 full.mp3

Missing 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

In this episode, we dive into Philip Pettit’s Republicanism from 1997, which argued that republicanism and liberalism are not the fast friends many assume them to be. However, many liberal and left philosophers think that neo-republicanism is just riding the coattails of liberalism or that it’s just another bourgeois moralism. So what’s the big deal? And how radical can republicanism be?

patreon.com/leftofphilosophy

References:

Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford University Press, 1997).

Philip Pettit, The Common Mind (Oxford University Press, 1993).

Music:

Vintage Memories by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com

Comments

Mitchell Harris

Please give us a series on the State 🙏🙏🙏

Louis Tessier

thank you for the brilliant discussion. the idea that it takes some form of self-imposed collective unfreedom or appeal to virtue to bring freedom from domination into being really struck a chord. I also enjoyed the discussion of Will's question about impersonal domination, and whether one can say that capital dominates us, or whether this is just a problematic figure of speech. I have a lot of sympathy for Lilian's social practical approach to capitalism, as reveals capitalism to be a socially instituted practice of humans acting intentionally and indeed rationally. Even so, by focusing on interpersonal domination, it really ends up being a concretistic critique of capitalism. Marx didn't just argue that commodities only appeared to hold a tyranical sway over people, but veiling direct social relations, he claimed that they actually did in practice. So while showing how elites are actually dominating and conspiring against the working class is perhaps mobilizing and very much needed in this particularly unequal stage of capitalist development, it's an impoverished account of the social mediation characteristic of capitalism in general, the kind of unfreedom that it imposes on capitalists and workers alike, and therefore the action that it requires to overcome it. Or at least, that is what I take theorists like Moishe Postone, Michael Heinrich or Werner Bonefeld to be arguing.

Nic Johnson

The gang discovers the neo-Republican/neo-liberal argument for “rules rather than discretion in the conduct of monetary policy”!