Single-dialectic thinking has limitations which explain why radicals have a tendency to antagonize their allies and to fight amongst themselves, splitting into subfactions and trashing the insufficiently pure. This is not just pettiness or zealotry. There is a real epistemic problem at work.
Pessimistic visions of feminism as a permanent resistance to an intractable patriarchy are distressingly common. We need a different kind of intellectual production than we’ve had so far.
Liberal or libertarian social theories employing an MI strategy and counterhegemonic theories employing a dialectical strategy cannot be synthesized and cannot even really debate each other, at least not in strictly rational terms. Each side depends on fundamental assumptions which appear ludicrous or just plain stupid to the other side.
If we treat “truth” as a form of social practice, then epistemic strategies have implications for the social structure of truth.
Karl Marx and most Marxists have tended to take philosophically realist positions, often aggressively so. Marx’s work, however, implies a kind of relativism. This relativism actually raises the stakes of socialist intellectual production.
Did the courts fail? This is a more complex question than one might think.
I suspect that the revolution will feel surprisingly familiar.
Karl Marx wanted to build a revolutionary and emancipatory social theory, not an ideological justification for state violence. What went wrong?
Although race is a socially constructed identity, it is still a real force in society, and racism can exist without a specific intent be racist.
The same struggles that take place in the analog world also take place in the digital world. The two worlds are distinct, but not separate.