There's a certain sense of bleak irony in the fact that even neoconservatives have been consumed by the end of history. The idea of spreading liberal democracy to every country seems just as much of a pipedream as spreading communism.
The most they can talk about now isn't a "new world order" but containing China and maintaining regional stability, which is still difficult to sell to a public which is convinced that where liberal democracy doesn't exist, it will never exist. Even the US, which persisted even through the 00s, seems to be following Europe's lead in a domestic turn. Both the American left and right have abandoned exceptionalism as a principle.
It's like they're being mugged by reality all over again.
Does it really matter whether or not predestination is real? Regardless of the answer, the command given to us remains the same; these grand questions are for the Lord to handle. We are still to act, bearing the sense of duty of one who has all the free will in the world.
Perhaps it makes for an "interesting" intellectual exercise, but the reflection will lead nowhere, only giving room for the individual to postpone action.
If reactionaries were serious about combatting social decay, they'd engage with critical theory rather than circlejerking over "trad" iconography. Their fear of immanent critique renders them powerless against the march of modernity, only able to ever grasp things in mere form rather than essence. They'd rather cling to a false foundation than pass through the uncertainty that leads us to the truth.
Pretty interesting article regarding attempts to engineer a viable cryptocurrency. One of the best takeaways from this is that the crypto fad is essentially tech-nerds having to relearn centuries-old lessons in economics.
SocDems have a terrible habit of neglecting the fact that in a globalized world, economies have to be considered in relation to the larger world-system. The distribution of labor, resources, and capital across countries isn't symmetrical by any means.
One of the reasons the Nordic model works so well is because the Nordic countries aren't afflicted by the resource curse. The area is a capital hub, so there's focus on improving living standards as to attract human capital.
An economy can't be founded on capital alone however. Countries which provide resources and labor to the global market often take the brunt of economic fluctuation and often don't feel pressed to improve general living conditions.
Regardless of whether or not we consider this to be overt "imperialism" as the charge constantly leveled, the fact is that our supply chain is comprised of various dependencies and divisions, which develop an inherently lopsided relationship between the periphery and the core.
Art is a form of two-way communication. Its meaning is just as much dependent on the audience as it is on the creator.
On one hand, it is inherently political in that it has to be considered in the social context of its creation and consumption. Often times these clues can help us in developing an analysis which cuts deeper to its meaning. Criticism is applicable to all forms of art, high and low.
However, at the same time, the audience is capable of appropriating and shaping its meaning from their own personal relationship to it. This is important because it breaks down the barrier between consumer and producer, allowing for a reciprocal relationship to emerge.
A creator can have a history or hold views which are toxic without it poisoning the art itself. It's dependent on what facets of their character and environment reflect in the work itself, and how we ourselves are capable of engaging with and transforming that meaning.
One of the damning things for ancaps IMO is the network effect. Historically the foundation for infastructure networks such as the internet and highways had to be centrally planned in order to solve the issue of actually making it into the standard.
It's the same with fiat currency. Confidence is backed by the state's force. You look at all these alternative cryptocurrencies and we see that they're simply not functional as day-to-day currencies.
Yes, the market can append to pre-planned networks (such as private Swedish roads) or develop commodities for it (such as cars), but that in no way means the market can replace the government's role in the coordination.
(It should also be noted that private Swedish roads carry only 4 percent of the nation's traffic.)
The church should not go with the world (as progressive Christians assume) or apart from it (as conservative Christians assume), but rather instead against it.
Christianity is a universal and missionary religion; we maintain our faith and develop our identity in our struggle against the world. Coexistence, whether it be through assimilation or separation is completely contrary to the very essence of the Gospel.
Integralism presumes secular and religious powers can be merged, but in the process the church is subordinated to the state, regardless of initial intentions. This is what the Reformers realized.
However, the political-religious pluralism they proposed lead to the marginalization of religion to the private sphere, taking away oxygen from a mission which presupposes the convergence of the private and public. The only solution is the annihilation of secular power.
"Marx couldn't have predicted today's capitalism" is nowhere near as profound of a take as you think.
This isn't to endorse a dogmatic reading of Marx, but rather instead to reiterate that when you attempt to reconstruct a body of work, you shouldn't carelessly cherrypick or discard ideas without ensuring that your reconstruction is consistent, substantial, and grounded.
Searching for inspiration in the past leads to an intoxicating pastiche, which reaction preys on by maintaining it as fantasy. We cannot look to the future either, as limits on our imagination project current social relations onto that ideal. That leaves one option, the present.
But if capital is totalizing, how can we look to the present? Because the struggle against a dispassionate, hypertechnical society in and of itself sows the seeds for a revolutionary romanticism.
The live story of man versus capital organically develops inspiration, and its from that inspiration the struggle and its forms develop. Just like spectacle, it self-perpetuates, but it first has to be posited by spontaneous action, a superrational will to struggle.
Both evangelicals and universalists make the mistake of assuming salvation is transactional, a coupon to be redeemed at heaven's gate, hence their preoccupation with the afterlife. Any soteriology which neglects the impact on one's present life is fundamentally un-Christian.
The most important aspect of salvation is the radical transformation of the self. We are not sentenced to damnation, but rather instead born into it, as sin and despair are intertwined. Viewing salvation in terms of "who gets to go to heaven or hell" merely dodges this issue.
Radical Protestant, vaguely ultra-left, copyleft/federation shill. I do various projects related to tech, philosophy, and politics.
I use this account to draft ideas for future essays.
RCsocial.net — a friendly social networking space for those with an interest in Catholicism.