Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Critical Theory: A Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Critical Theory: A Discussion

    A critical theory of globalization is a practical or praxeologically oriented theory that sees the “fact of globalization” in relation to the goal of realizing the norms of human emancipation and democracy. The central and still open questions for such a practically oriented social science are the following: what available forms of praxis are able to promote the transformations that could lead to new forms of democracy? What sort of practical knowledge is needed to make this possible and how might this knowledge be stabilised in institutionalised forms of democratic inquiry? What are the possibilities and opportunities for democracy at a higher level of aggregation that globalization makes possible? How might the public sphere be realized at the global level? The argument here suggests that such inquiry and institutions must go beyond single perspective understandings of democracy that dominate national political life as well as the various administrative techne that are common in the international sphere. A critical praxeology of realizing norms in multiperspectival institutions might add that it is also a reflexive question of putting such organization in the larger context of a project of human emancipation. Such an interactive account of publics and institutions gives a plausible practical meaning to the extending of the project of democracy to the global level. It also models in its own form of social science the mode of inquiry that this and other publics may employ in creating and assessing the possibilities for realizing democracy. A critical theory of globalization does not only point out the deficits of current practices, but shows the potential for properly organized publics to create new ones. Since the new practices need not be modeled on the old ones, it is not a theory of democracy as such, but of democratization.
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

    "...promote the transformations that could lead to new forms of democracy?" ???


    Personally, I consider CT a wolf in sheep's clothing ever since the day I first heard it applied to the study of literature, calling the writer's intent immaterial to the work and the work just an artifact of the writer's milieu. The coat sounds of democratization but the bones look like Marxism. And as anybody knows, Marxism and individual freedom are non-compatible. The Marxists know they can't sell their "product" with an honest description, so they cloak it in terms like "norms of human emancipation" and "possibilities of realizing democracy." A lot of it is, obviously, philosophical gobbledegook.

    You should really seek to clarify what a Marxist means when they say something like, "A critical theory of globalization does not only point out the deficits of current practices, but shows the potential for properly organized publics to create new ones." Exactly what do you mean by "...new ones?" Even more chilling is "...properly organized publics." At least you want a clear definition of terms. What does a Marxist mean when they use the words, "emancipation" or "democracy?" The other danger exists in the crossover from discussions of philosophy in the ivory towers to the application of philosophies in the real world by political men and women. Usually, the distillation is nothing more than the reach for power.

    Some people may actually use the word "democratization" and mean something other than "individual freedom."

    My view is that individual freedom is defined by the concept of "A man's home is his castle" (how else can individual freedom be expressed, at its core?). Marxism would seek to remove ALL of the castles - to the Marxist, "equality" means nobody gets a castle. Democracy seeks the opposite, to give every man/woman their own castle.


    All I can say is, just be careful who you allow to define your history. "Democracy" without individual freedom is not democracy. As we learned under Trumpty Dumpty, "My words mean whatever I want them to mean. No more, no less." A common trait in politics.
    Last edited by Roh; 02-10-2022, 05:27 PM.

  • #2
    Of that generation of men to whom we owe so much, the man to whom we owe most is, of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said:

    "I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind's."

    And again:

    "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

    If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.

    "Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world."

    And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence:

    "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...onalism-speech



    In other words, we can fight the excesses of capitalism without resorting to Marxism.

    Comment


    • #3
      I read

      A critical theory of globalization is a practical or praxeologically oriented theory that sees the “fact of globalization” in relation to the goal of realizing the norms of human emancipation and democracy.
      And the ol' BS alarm goes off. Heavy poli-sci academia mumbo-jumbo follows...

      Almost as bad as corporate PR pieces on the crap-o-meter.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Roh View Post
        Of that generation of men to whom we owe so much, the man to whom we owe most is, of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said:

        "I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind's."

        And again:

        "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

        If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.

        "Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world."

        And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence:

        "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

        https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...onalism-speech



        In other words, we can fight the excesses of capitalism without resorting to Marxism.
        Exactly. That's one of the myths of the capitalism apologists. Two and only two choices - Karl or Ayn.

        Both are equal bullshit.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by W*GS View Post
          I read



          And the ol' BS alarm goes off. Heavy poli-sci academia mumbo-jumbo follows...

          Almost as bad as corporate PR pieces on the crap-o-meter.
          Unfortunately, you hear this stuff bubble up in some discussions on the left, in feminism, progressivism, etc. I just wish they would be honest and identify themselves, and their agenda, clearly. Progressivism is not Marxism, but Marxists have been trying to shanghai it for years.

          Progressivism is a movement to promote the social welfare, end corruption, and reform the abuses of capitalism. Marxism is a movement to replace the government. Two, totally different things.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Roh View Post

            Unfortunately, you hear this stuff bubble up in some discussions on the left, in feminism, progressivism, etc. I just wish they would be honest and identify themselves, and their agenda, clearly. Progressivism is not Marxism, but Marxists have been trying to shanghai it for years.

            Progressivism is a movement to promote the social welfare, end corruption, and reform the abuses of capitalism. Marxism is a movement to replace the government. Two, totally different things.
            Asking discernment from the right is asking too much.

            Comment

            Working...
            X