politics

can anyone inform me about what's so scorned about engels' dialectic of nature? I've never read it, just curious...

There's probably better reporting on this than the BBC...

Quoted: Peers are to consider proposed new laws for England and Wales to deal with what campaigners are calling modern-day slavery.

these are all basically for my own benefit at this point...but hey here's a dire straits song bonus...if you're into that sort of thing...not that there's anything wrong with that

last bit makes it all worth it

dominic comments on his concept of dysphoria. i remain pretty unsatisfied.

levi continues the normativity saga. while this discussion may threaten to get boring (the whole thing about moralists being the most immoral people should definitely put down), i think this piece raises some more interesting points. particularly the rejection of the kantian paradigm on the basis of its non-evolutionary character. in the context of so much nietzschianism, i find that pretty provocative. there's also the point about badiou and latour which may be helpful viz. dysphoric subjects, but i'm still confused.

The x turns y on his head thing is getting pretty useless though, and it never really made much sense in the first place, as a metaphor.

Nick's own clarification. Nothing on dysphoria, which is my key question, and I don't really see what is militant about the picture he's painting here. This is good, basic, progressive politics. Liberal politics.

Quoted: But on reflection, one of the significant points of my piece is that it doesn’t require a mass uprising, it doesn’t require class consciousness, and it doesn’t require coordinating a mass majority. It can be small groups, working in local communities to create social services for their neighbours and families.

Very ambivalent about this 'application' of actor-network theory, first I've read so far. It seems to hinge on a questionable distinction between the militant and the neoliberal subject at the moment of this "framing" where agency arises spontaneously external to "the calculations of the world" whereas the neoliberal is strangely determined even in their preference. Maybe's there some key Badiouian leverage here I don't fully understand. I certainly don't see how all these discourses are compatible.

It's also just a presentation outline and not a paper, so, meh...