I think if the widespread approval of the killer across the political spectrum were indicative of some "cross factional disregard for the rule of law" you'd see that manifest in other, fairly obvious ways. Instead, as always, people seem quite fixated on the rule of law and elites' routine violations of it, on both the left and the right. Conservative outrage at Hunter Biden's pardon or the left pointing to the legal details of yet another reputable legacy institution (this time, Amnesty International) charging Israel with genocide are just recent examples.
It's true, of course, that Democrats and Republicans have been eroding the public's trust in the rule of law at an accelerated, hyper-mediatized clip. But this trend is recognizable in America as far back as the 1970s. Americans' approval of vigilante justice, be it real or fictionalized, stretches back even further. The "karma's a bitch" sentiment I see and hear being expressed re: UnitedHealthcare's CEO - not just on the internet but in public - is, I think, better understood as the latest installment of this admiration than some affirmative gesture towards a new political strategy, tactic, belief, or trend in thinking. No serious person thinks this guy getting clipped will change anything. It's just that, in an era where everyone is increasingly aware that nothing is going to get better, they're feeling pretty pleased that the right people's lives have gotten worse for a moment. This is about a libidinal desire for catharsis absent political change, not a change in itself.
How would you describe the inherent contradictions of liberalism? Is the contradiction between enlightenment values & base human tendencies (towards tribalism, religiosity, whatever) or something else?
I think that it is better, for accurate discussion of history and politics (avoiding anachronisms etc.), to think of liberalism as an historically particular cultural expression of a mode of production rather than as a Platonic Form. You can avoid having to understand "liberalisms" contradictions in terms of other "pure, timeless ideals" like tribalism or religiousity since, these supposedly timeless ideals are in fact themselves products of all preceding modes of production and particular expressions of the historical process. We can think of liberalism as the ideology of an ascendent bourgeois political order emerging in the wake of and concurrent with European Colonisation, Industrialisation and the novel division of labour thay we have had for the past 200 years or so. It can sometimes be hard to say "when" liberalism began some argue that it began with "humanism" of the Renaissance others with the Protestant Reformation and others with the French and American Revolutions but certainly since those Revolutions it has been the ruling political order of the international colonial network. Its contradictions lie in its historical development; from yoir perspective of "humanitarian rights" we see that liberalism preaches at any given time democracy for all (and it whispers that it only exists for some), it speaks of a fraternity (but is not clear who belongs to it), it declares FREEDOM (but it utilises force and tyranny in the workplace) et cetera
The thing I always think about is if we were all truly "rational actors", then stuff like advertising or gambling wouldn't exist, because there's no rationale to be swayed to drink sugary carbonated shit by seeing it on a tv screen, or throw your money away in search of jackpot you know does not exist, but alas, primate brains, etc.
I guess you can get all semantic about what rationality specifically is or whatever but regardless, what I think Josh is pointing towards is that all of our current institutions operate structurally downstream from these enlightenment values, in assumption that these values (ie voting works because people will always vote in their best interests, etc etc etc) make the system durable and perpetual.
Of course, as we continue to see, if erosion of this hegemonic power is possible, then the contradictions of liberalism suddenly implicate massive socioeconomic and cultural precarity everywhere, inherently contradicting the "rational" nature of these institutions to begin with. So like yes enlightment values vs ingrained human traits
My comment was meant to be taken literally, not an attack. Sorry lol.
. “Also, the economy is unlikely to find new life to breathe, as the means of raw expansion which have historically characterized capitalism are near or beyond their limits.”
I’ve thought this myself many times, but I’m not an economist and don’t have serious evidence.
Luigi Mangione strode across the political stage with all the stunning confidence and courage of the Great Anarchist Killers of the Late 19th and Early 20th centuries.
I think many people are aware there is no such thing as equality before the law. Of course this has been the case since laws conception. The courtroom is just another battlespace of power-struggles and class-warfare.
The weaponization of the law in the 2024 election has made many people aware that the courtroom is a battlespace. A battlespace, where capital is the biggest deciding factor in who wins.
In a country where people are truly equal before the law, Luigi could have resolved his grievances with United Healthcare in the courtroom. Because people are not equal before the law in the USA, Luigi didn't move the conflict to the courtroom, because he would lose. Instead he chose a battlespace in which he had the biggest chance of getting one over on United Healthcare. He chose realspace and so a CEO got whacked. United Healthcare of course, is entirely unfazed. Brian Thompson was not United Healthcare, he was merely a realspace asset of United Healthcare.
I’m afraid that the echo chamber is leading us to believe it’s partisan when in reality (I’m from Ohio) the bipartisan narrative I’m hearing is still “he had two kids”.
It is easy to voice support for the downfall of the current order and the erosion of legal standards; it is a much harder thing to convert your everyday existence into an existence which disregards that order and flaunts the legal system. Most people implicitly reinforce the rule of law and the status quo at multiple points throughout a single day yet very rarely do they do the opposite once in their lives; that is what makes them citizens. If your hyposthesis is correct then it is simply an expression of the total implosion of the social order of the USA, it is the creation of a Disunited Individuals of America.
I think if the widespread approval of the killer across the political spectrum were indicative of some "cross factional disregard for the rule of law" you'd see that manifest in other, fairly obvious ways. Instead, as always, people seem quite fixated on the rule of law and elites' routine violations of it, on both the left and the right. Conservative outrage at Hunter Biden's pardon or the left pointing to the legal details of yet another reputable legacy institution (this time, Amnesty International) charging Israel with genocide are just recent examples.
It's true, of course, that Democrats and Republicans have been eroding the public's trust in the rule of law at an accelerated, hyper-mediatized clip. But this trend is recognizable in America as far back as the 1970s. Americans' approval of vigilante justice, be it real or fictionalized, stretches back even further. The "karma's a bitch" sentiment I see and hear being expressed re: UnitedHealthcare's CEO - not just on the internet but in public - is, I think, better understood as the latest installment of this admiration than some affirmative gesture towards a new political strategy, tactic, belief, or trend in thinking. No serious person thinks this guy getting clipped will change anything. It's just that, in an era where everyone is increasingly aware that nothing is going to get better, they're feeling pretty pleased that the right people's lives have gotten worse for a moment. This is about a libidinal desire for catharsis absent political change, not a change in itself.
I don't think that's what Joshua's arguing at all, but sure! I'm skeptical, though.
>> The breakdown of this order is now pushing on the open door of a 21st century politics that is fully based
🙃
ty I was wondering if anyone would catch this lol
https://imgur.com/a/EnYZ9pt
How would you describe the inherent contradictions of liberalism? Is the contradiction between enlightenment values & base human tendencies (towards tribalism, religiosity, whatever) or something else?
I think that it is better, for accurate discussion of history and politics (avoiding anachronisms etc.), to think of liberalism as an historically particular cultural expression of a mode of production rather than as a Platonic Form. You can avoid having to understand "liberalisms" contradictions in terms of other "pure, timeless ideals" like tribalism or religiousity since, these supposedly timeless ideals are in fact themselves products of all preceding modes of production and particular expressions of the historical process. We can think of liberalism as the ideology of an ascendent bourgeois political order emerging in the wake of and concurrent with European Colonisation, Industrialisation and the novel division of labour thay we have had for the past 200 years or so. It can sometimes be hard to say "when" liberalism began some argue that it began with "humanism" of the Renaissance others with the Protestant Reformation and others with the French and American Revolutions but certainly since those Revolutions it has been the ruling political order of the international colonial network. Its contradictions lie in its historical development; from yoir perspective of "humanitarian rights" we see that liberalism preaches at any given time democracy for all (and it whispers that it only exists for some), it speaks of a fraternity (but is not clear who belongs to it), it declares FREEDOM (but it utilises force and tyranny in the workplace) et cetera
The thing I always think about is if we were all truly "rational actors", then stuff like advertising or gambling wouldn't exist, because there's no rationale to be swayed to drink sugary carbonated shit by seeing it on a tv screen, or throw your money away in search of jackpot you know does not exist, but alas, primate brains, etc.
I guess you can get all semantic about what rationality specifically is or whatever but regardless, what I think Josh is pointing towards is that all of our current institutions operate structurally downstream from these enlightenment values, in assumption that these values (ie voting works because people will always vote in their best interests, etc etc etc) make the system durable and perpetual.
Of course, as we continue to see, if erosion of this hegemonic power is possible, then the contradictions of liberalism suddenly implicate massive socioeconomic and cultural precarity everywhere, inherently contradicting the "rational" nature of these institutions to begin with. So like yes enlightment values vs ingrained human traits
Is this a quote from Das Kapital or something ?
My comment was meant to be taken literally, not an attack. Sorry lol.
. “Also, the economy is unlikely to find new life to breathe, as the means of raw expansion which have historically characterized capitalism are near or beyond their limits.”
I’ve thought this myself many times, but I’m not an economist and don’t have serious evidence.
Not sure what I look forward to more, a doomscroll episode or a newsletter/substack. Great work either way 🫡
Murder is bad
😂
Luigi Mangione strode across the political stage with all the stunning confidence and courage of the Great Anarchist Killers of the Late 19th and Early 20th centuries.
https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/decapitate-and-dethrone
I think many people are aware there is no such thing as equality before the law. Of course this has been the case since laws conception. The courtroom is just another battlespace of power-struggles and class-warfare.
The weaponization of the law in the 2024 election has made many people aware that the courtroom is a battlespace. A battlespace, where capital is the biggest deciding factor in who wins.
In a country where people are truly equal before the law, Luigi could have resolved his grievances with United Healthcare in the courtroom. Because people are not equal before the law in the USA, Luigi didn't move the conflict to the courtroom, because he would lose. Instead he chose a battlespace in which he had the biggest chance of getting one over on United Healthcare. He chose realspace and so a CEO got whacked. United Healthcare of course, is entirely unfazed. Brian Thompson was not United Healthcare, he was merely a realspace asset of United Healthcare.
Liberalism was always incompatible with capitalism even as it creates capitalism.
Saint Luigi Did Nothing Wrong. The only people complaining about him or the CEO shooting are Establishment Simps and Jews.
More Dead Corporats. Peter Theil should be next.
Keep it up!
I’m afraid that the echo chamber is leading us to believe it’s partisan when in reality (I’m from Ohio) the bipartisan narrative I’m hearing is still “he had two kids”.
It is easy to voice support for the downfall of the current order and the erosion of legal standards; it is a much harder thing to convert your everyday existence into an existence which disregards that order and flaunts the legal system. Most people implicitly reinforce the rule of law and the status quo at multiple points throughout a single day yet very rarely do they do the opposite once in their lives; that is what makes them citizens. If your hyposthesis is correct then it is simply an expression of the total implosion of the social order of the USA, it is the creation of a Disunited Individuals of America.
You're secretely controlling Jreg with nanobots; you can't fool me
Please keep the casual Sunday newsletter coming 👍🏼