I appreciate Chris Cutrone and the Platypus Affiliated Society for forcing me to confront just how little I had read of the primary texts in certain domains in which thought I had an informed opinion.
Chris Cutrone this was a fantastic summary of your analysis thank you!!! I’ve been following you for a bit but this is a really good summary that helps me put your thoughts together coherently rather than stochastically. Now I can finally formulate my responses and I look forward to getting your book to check your sources for your thought.
~1:53:00 I mean if you want to change what the workers do then maybe start by raising awareness of how systems constitute themselves so that there seems to be nothing wrong with the idea of rentiers slowly disappearing from economic study. (edit: which now happen to operate through finance in a big way and they probably are organized and intentional on some level)
~1:12:30 "50 years of my lifetime more globally integrated more free market" I mean Monetarism's rise is explained by the thing being fundamentally about tribute extraction (Steve Keen's business cycle modelling points to an ongoing need to deficit spend that Monetarism denies, so that the US can do deficit spending despite "exporting" Monetarism while the rest of the world does the exporting of items to the US) and the US not being the big export economy anymore plus you can make your military more optional this way.
~1:24:10 Chris Cutrone says not losing sight of that stateless thing is important by juxtaposing it with Obama. But so I don't understand how aiming for a stateless society helps there at all I mean it might as well be an impediment to understanding what's wrong with Obama by leaning into some rather mysterious goal that need not relate to Obama in any practical way anyway. No?
I've been struggling with nationalism on the left, since it implies a project of genocide if it is based on identity or at least some mode of apartheid or disenfranchisement, I think by structural necessity. However, I feel like Chris comes to a similar conclusion that I do, that the nationalist project sublates itself. Corporatism is a method to try to prevent its overcoming, but I don't think it can work for long, since it comes into crisis. My sense of it is that domestic capital tries to lower its wages outside the realm of identity solidarity of the national subject to get an edge on its domestic competition. The unionized national subject of preferred labour is then in a bind. If they attempt to maintain their privileged position, they must freeze their wage negotiations or the employer will feel forced to bring on more and more of those outside their sphere of solidarity. A two tiered system leaves them stuck; getting one group to play off against the other. The only way that labour can regain its edge is to integrate all workers. This economically and socially erodes national particularity in the life of the working class to the point that it distinctiveness becomes mostly irrelevant. It is all driven by the interests of the national bourgeois coupon clippers, who feel they are owed some sort of patronage due to their dasien BS, but their interests overwhelm their aesthetic preferences of a homogenous society (as a representative of concrete difference), at least for those that stay competitive. I wish we could just skip the genocidal nationalism and move on to a society of diverse labour that can make a Marxist socialism. This view is only within the boundaries of the nation itself, as it undermines itself, but of course there is the larger view of international solidarity of labour, which is the future and horizon which is necessary to meet the challenge of global capital.
Great interview and good questions! But I wonder why you guys didn’t get to the point and talk about the Poverty of Philosophy? As you said(the host - props to you, no hate) said “if I put on my Deluze hat [I could critique Marx like so]…”. Is that notion of different hats not a way of avoiding societies necessary task? As though there is a Marx hat, just like there is a Deluze hat? Maybe Marx isn’t a hat for all time - stasis - maybe he’s doing more than philosophy could?
Chris Cutrone sounds a lot like InfraHaz when he spells out that ultraorthodoxies might just breed a new liberal current. Now is it the same liberalism as in the west?
Amazingly conducted interview! One of the best deepdives into Cutrone's thought.
I appreciate Chris Cutrone and the Platypus Affiliated Society for forcing me to confront just how little I had read of the primary texts in certain domains in which thought I had an informed opinion.
I will point out, for those who prefer it, that 2x speed works just fine here.
2:13:48
2:11:39 Cadell’s Q
2:12:00 “what I’m trying to do”
2:12:35 “the point”
Thanks for bringing Chris up. A really interesting guest
Chris Cutrone this was a fantastic summary of your analysis thank you!!! I’ve been following you for a bit but this is a really good summary that helps me put your thoughts together coherently rather than stochastically. Now I can finally formulate my responses and I look forward to getting your book to check your sources for your thought.
Another happy Democrat customer
~1:53:00 I mean if you want to change what the workers do then maybe start by raising awareness of how systems constitute themselves so that there seems to be nothing wrong with the idea of rentiers slowly disappearing from economic study. (edit: which now happen to operate through finance in a big way and they probably are organized and intentional on some level)
Awesome! Surprise Cadel and Cutrone! Thanks guys!
~1:12:30 "50 years of my lifetime more globally integrated more free market" I mean Monetarism's rise is explained by the thing being fundamentally about tribute extraction (Steve Keen's business cycle modelling points to an ongoing need to deficit spend that Monetarism denies, so that the US can do deficit spending despite "exporting" Monetarism while the rest of the world does the exporting of items to the US) and the US not being the big export economy anymore plus you can make your military more optional this way.
Sure there's some oscillating going on but how you work with this from a left perspective isn't clear at all.
~1:24:10 Chris Cutrone says not losing sight of that stateless thing is important by juxtaposing it with Obama. But so I don't understand how aiming for a stateless society helps there at all I mean it might as well be an impediment to understanding what's wrong with Obama by leaning into some rather mysterious goal that need not relate to Obama in any practical way anyway. No?
Throwing it out there, it’s possible to thread your own commentary by replying to your first comment.
Some folks find it an insufferable activity to spam comment sections.
For example, what I’m doing now.
Which is both an example of the insufferability of spam…
…and a reminder that this is only possible (threading commentary) at the top level.
32:02 Kohei Saito right?
Yes
Good morning teachers
I've been struggling with nationalism on the left, since it implies a project of genocide if it is based on identity or at least some mode of apartheid or disenfranchisement, I think by structural necessity. However, I feel like Chris comes to a similar conclusion that I do, that the nationalist project sublates itself. Corporatism is a method to try to prevent its overcoming, but I don't think it can work for long, since it comes into crisis. My sense of it is that domestic capital tries to lower its wages outside the realm of identity solidarity of the national subject to get an edge on its domestic competition. The unionized national subject of preferred labour is then in a bind. If they attempt to maintain their privileged position, they must freeze their wage negotiations or the employer will feel forced to bring on more and more of those outside their sphere of solidarity. A two tiered system leaves them stuck; getting one group to play off against the other. The only way that labour can regain its edge is to integrate all workers. This economically and socially erodes national particularity in the life of the working class to the point that it distinctiveness becomes mostly irrelevant. It is all driven by the interests of the national bourgeois coupon clippers, who feel they are owed some sort of patronage due to their dasien BS, but their interests overwhelm their aesthetic preferences of a homogenous society (as a representative of concrete difference), at least for those that stay competitive. I wish we could just skip the genocidal nationalism and move on to a society of diverse labour that can make a Marxist socialism. This view is only within the boundaries of the nation itself, as it undermines itself, but of course there is the larger view of international solidarity of labour, which is the future and horizon which is necessary to meet the challenge of global capital.
Great interview and good questions!
But I wonder why you guys didn’t get to the point and talk about the Poverty of Philosophy? As you said(the host - props to you, no hate) said “if I put on my Deluze hat [I could critique Marx like so]…”. Is that notion of different hats not a way of avoiding societies necessary task? As though there is a Marx hat, just like there is a Deluze hat? Maybe Marx isn’t a hat for all time - stasis - maybe he’s doing more than philosophy could?
I dont know about his first movie, but Walsh's Am I Racist? was entirely about promoting non-divisiveness in contrast to the agenda of the woke left.
Chris Cutrone sounds a lot like InfraHaz when he spells out that ultraorthodoxies might just breed a new liberal current. Now is it the same liberalism as in the west?
Re: the add in beginning of vid: “making philosophy actual” yeah good luck with that. You just become actual Democrats
Parasite talk
Most ideas are wrong.