Peter Herrmann's Blog

Post-Easter Message

18 aprile 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in general, quotes, thoughts on life and its philosophy

This should not be forgotten, now, when returning from the mysteries of metaphysical celebrations.

At first sight, this mode of thinking seems to us very luminous, because it is that of so-called sound commonsense. Only sound commonsense, respectable fellow that he is, in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. And the metaphysical mode of thought, justifiable and necessary as it is in a number of domains whose extent varies according to the nature of the particular object of investigation, sooner or later reaches a limit, beyond which it becomes one-sided, restricted, abstract, lost in insoluble contradictions. In the contemplation of individual things, it forgets the connection between them; in the contemplation of their existence, it forgets the beginning and end of that existence; of their repose, it forgets their motion. It cannot see the woods for the trees.

From: Frederick Engels, 1880: Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

responsibility – responsiveness: trying to avoid the wrong answer

16 aprile 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, contemporary socio-economic situation, Peter's Log, thoughts on life and its philosophy, works, works, projects, publications

Waiting for the results from Turkey …

… whatever the outcome will be

… daily bread, the worries about securing it … daily routines of getting it – while the ‘big events’ are overshadowing every step, not necessarily all the time present, and still often enough hammering into the brain, shouting over the routines and the daily bread and the worries about securing it … – hammering louder than the footsteps of any individual on the asphalt; different things going through my mind, also my CV came up a short while ago – together with the hammering of the boot-bearing thoughts …

I was wondering if we are now moving back to the stage of considering to delete part of it, hide away what we did and what we have reason to be proud of …? Not that I am fearful, worrying in the strict sense = considering to delete, while being afraid of being deleted. But the need to think about this as being possibly urgently advisable makes me feeling uncomfortable.

What and how can we worrying warriors and warring worriers teach young people, the future to stand up if we live under conditions that nature such ideas …?

Let us hope, not for me, surely a bit for ‘us’ who do not want to stand there as spectators but especially for those to which we committed out selves, for ‘those future social lifes’

The Womb he crawled from

14 aprile 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in contemporary socio-economic situation, thoughts on life and its philosophy

The womb he crawled from is still going strong.

We find these words in The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, written by Bertolt Brecht. Most timely a reminder, findig ourselves at the doorsteps of the votes in Turkey and France. And while knowing about the meaning of highly emotional performances of a hate preacher like Trump, we should never forget that all this, what is called populism, has a very rational background, and a very rational meaning:

Man sollte nicht vergessen, dass die Funktion des Faschismus, entgegen seinem ‘irrationalem’ Diskurs, darin besteht, das kapitalistische Geschäftstreiben ganz ohne ‘Bremsen’ sich fortsetzen zu lassen. In diesem Sinne trägt der Faschismus die kapitalistische, oder besser: bürgerliche Rationaliät zu ihrem Gipfel. Insofern die ‘Religiösierung’ der Gesellschaft dazu beitragt, diesem Ziel nahezukommen, gehört sie mit zu den Zielen faschistischer Politik.

****

One should not forget that the function of fascism, not withstanding its ‘irrational discourse’, is to allow the capitalist system to unfold wither ‘barriers’. In this light, fascism, carries the capitalist or we may say even more precise: bourgeois rationality to its utmost peak. As fr as ‘religionisation’ contributes to rech this goal, it belongs to fascist politics.

Mehmet Okyayuz

And we should not forget, that all this is also including the ‘slow killing’ of all the ‘Me’s, who are Daniel Blakes‘, and where fighting back is about anger and understanding a system where life, becoming life in austerity – not only in Britain – is ‘consciously cruel‘; and were people actually begin to fight back, instead of accepting to be charitably crucified.

Easter Maths?

13 aprile 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in contemporary socio-economic situation, thoughts on life and its philosophy

Of course, there had been a good reason for Ciro Guardaccione, saying

This is a fantastic thing, I would like to thank Pope Francis for everything

the background for this statement being a recent step made by the Vatican on which teleSUR reported in an article on April the 12th:

On Monday Pope Francis opened a free laundromat for people living on the streets in Rome.The Pope Francis Laundry, located in an abandoned hospital near the Vatican, was opened to “restore dignity to many people who are our brothers and sisters,” according to a statement.

It is good news, those, who are preparing for the Easter celebrations, going then to mass, make take into their hearts.

Still, doing the maths I am a bit hesitant when it comes to joining into any jubilee, or asking for extending the Misericordiae Vultus, even if the pope also rejects harshly hypocrisy, stating:

“There are those who say ‘I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association’,” the head of the Roman Catholic Church said.

He said some of these people should also say, “‘my life is not Christian, I don’t pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, (I lead) a double life’.”

Of course, we see that the church under the current leader is working on the issue:

The Vatican passed its first legislation against money laundering and terrorist group funding in 2011. At the Vatican Bank, Pope Francis has brought in new leadership, increased transparency and limited access to the bank to diocese and other Catholic organizations to further fight against money laundering. Under his watch, the bank also disclosed its very first annual financial report in 2013 (the bank released a second annual report last year).

But there some issues remain on the agenda that raise doubts and the question if we are actually facing a double hypocrisy: arguing against hypocrisy in the world while standing on hypocritical feet makes two right? And though knowing too well, that selling the assets and feeding the poor is not the solution, issues as the following remain on the table:

So far, at least, and if we can believe the satires, the son, when going to the cross, was joined by two people: Dismas, the penitent thief, and Gestas, the impenitent thief, the latter supposedly asking for salvation, the first asking to be remembered, the first very much behaving according the ‘life style’, that was much later named utilitarian – and on which I reflected recently. It surely is over-interpreted, still, there remains the question why Dismas was supposed in the left side of Jesus

Populism – more than a political trend?

9 aprile 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in contemporary socio-economic situation, projects, works, works, projects, publications

The debate on populism and he New Right surely needs considerations that go beyond political and institionalist considerations, not least looking at the political economy in which it stands and that stands as firm wall behind it. In preparation of a workshop later this year, organised by the Rosa-Luxemburg-Foundation, I developed some reflections which surely need further elaborations but may be already at this stage worthwhile tobe read. The beginning goes like this.

The fundamental first question is if we can still speak of a political left and right. And a definitive affirmation is underlying the main argument of the following. The reason for raising this issue is not the general ‘totalitarianism doctrine’ but its specific resurgence based on the view of both, left and right, being populist-authoritarian – as such, the currently fashionable argument is actually not referring to any concept of totalitarianism in the normally suggested understanding. Instead, Dalio et altera insinuate that ‘[p]opulism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, 3) the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them. These sentiments lead that constituency to put strong leaders in power.’[1] They interpreted this as ‘a rebellion of the common man against the elites and, to some extent, against the system.’[2] There is on the other hand too little concern with more detailed analysis, i.e. an analysis that engages as well openly in the contradictory nature of the shifts in the political landscape, and the fact that we should not be simply concerned with ‘enemy bashing’ but instead – looking at the details – we have to move towards searching for concrete utopias as alternative.[3] In fact that requires also that the left fully returns to sound arguments, not denying any problems nor suggesting arguments on the basis of moral sentiments.

And the further elaboration – as far as it stands now – can be found here. Of course, start of a debate, not final statement on an issue.

=====

[1] Dalio, Ray et altera; Bridgewater Associates, 2017, March 22: Populism: The Phenomenon; Bridgewater. Daily Observations: 2; https://www.bridgewater.com/resources/bwam032217.pdf; 31/03/17

[2] Ibid.

[3] see in this context an interesting study, on Italy, problematising the background in the overall political patterns, past and present, not least issuing the secular changes of the political culture: The Economist. Intelligence Unit, 2017, March 24^th: More fragmentation: back to the first republic?; http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx?articleid=265252810&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVdJM1pUTXpZamMzTm1JMyIsInQiOiI0bzU0Tmlad2xyVlVqUms2K3diSVJxNUt1c1RVdU1SUzVsZzRTRWpvcEhFa0U5cnBVaFBvbUY1YVBhaDNzRFU0cW5lY1A4SHRZd1JOMHZVa3J0WWFTMDF2UGhYckxcL2QyUkZpRnBVNDZyaGdBUWF3N3FyZHE5VWowXC84R0xLXC9KMSJ9; 31/03/17; see in this context also Anderson, Perry, 2017, March: Why the system will still win; in: Le Monde diplomatique; https://mondediplo.com/2017/03/02brexit; 02/04/17; Anderson, meaning populist movements from>>>> the right speaks of ‘anti-systemic movements’

… no waiting anymore …

5 aprile 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in general, joys - what we usually take for it, quotes

finally the short holidays are over, back to the students and the seminars, the really exciting side of teaching … so no waiting anymore, not even for Godot

Vien dietro a me, e lascia dir le genti:

sta come torre ferma, che non crolla
già mai la cima per soffiar di venti …

Dante Alighieri:

La Divina commedia

and there on the Purgatorio, Canto V

Karl Marx on Margaret Thatcher?

5 aprile 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in contemporary socio-economic situation, quotes, thoughts on life and its philosophy

Well, it is of course not so, but reading The Capital again, I got stuck when I came to the footnote 2 on page 605:[1]

Bentham is a purely English phenomenon. Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18^th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naïveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shop- keeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e. g., is “useful”, “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law”. Artistic criticism is “harmful”, because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nulla dies sine linea”, piled up mountains of books. Had I the courage of my friend, Heinrich Heine, I should call Mr. Jeremy a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity.

The difference between Bentham and Thatcher was that she did not pile up mountains of books but made, by applying the same way of thinking, a country relatively rich, its people relatively poor and the thinking absolutely un-societalist = lacking any consideration of solidarity. Indeed,

there is no such thing as society

– after the country had been reduced on individuals and at most family and neighbourhood, the plan is now Europeanised: BREXIT was and is an expression of exactly the same thought.

—

[1] Marx & Engels. Collected Works. Volume 35; Lawrence & Wishart, electronic books; 2010

Infantilisation

31 marzo 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in general, thoughts on life and its philosophy

isn’t there such discussion in political science and sociology? The EU is trendy and we all are creating and shaping Europe now.

Listening to what the leader says and looking at how they expand on it is as rich in content as what we are all asked do now.

Some of my earlier, though recent thoughts on the EUropean question can be found here, here and here.

quo vadis – not yet answered …

29 marzo 2017 da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in Slow Reading

… and possibly not yet sufficiently clear in posing the question.

In his address to the Heads of State, on the occasion of the anniversary of the process of European integration, of which the EU is so far the highest stage, pope Francis said that

[t]hat spirit remains as necessary as ever today, in the face of centrifugal impulses and the temptation to reduce the founding ideals of the Union to productive, economic and financial needs.

Of course, at first sight most laudable – and having worked many years in the orbit of the EUropean institutions I was very much friend of the idea of rejecting the dominance of the ‘economic thinking’. Who would not welcome and ask for

a new humanism based on three capacities: the capacity to integrate, the capacity for dialogue and the capacity to generate.

Still, there is a bit of a question – some, and not least old and new populists, would formulate it like this: Who will pay for it? From where do we get the resources? And there answer is well known: love it ‘to the other’, those who are outside and should be kept outside, those who are below and are too lazy to step up etc. – It is a it a reversed version of the claim that it should be on earth as it is in heaven (Mathew 6.10)

The other answer is in some way given by Francis, in his already quoted address on the occasion of the conferral of the Charlemagne Prize, where he rightly states:

The just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labour is not mere philanthropy.

But then he continues, suggesting that

[i]t is a moral obligation

and suggests that

[i]f we want to rethink our society, we need to create dignified and well-paying jobs, especially for our young people.

So, doesn’t he return to square one? – All what follows, all what is linked remains being about the distribution- and details slow reading must make us at least hesitate, if we learn that the ‘new economy’ is about

passing from an economy directed at revenue, profiting from speculation and lending at interest, to a social economy that invests in persons by creating jobs and providing training.

There is a twist in the middle of the thought: first we move to a different direction of the production itself, one that is not

directed at revenue, profiting from speculation and lending at interest

Instead it is about ‘a social economy’; but second we arrive again by being interested in and geared towards the individuals, investing

in persons by creating jobs and providing training.

Of course it is about

access to land and lodging through labour.

And of course

[l]abour is in fact the setting in which individuals and communities bring into play “many aspects of life ….”

But all these aspects have to be thought of in a relational way – would the use of and reference to personalities change the result of the reading?

I do not have the ultimate answer, and there may well be different answers. And it will be even difficult to find a sound formulation of a question. But I still think – and think more and more – that it is the old question, turning full attention to the way in which we deal with

productive, economic and financial needs

and that means to think further about what may be called “social policy as production”, not as complement and not as supplement and not as value-lead phantom that easily becomes valueless.

Autore: Peter Herrmann's Blog