tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post3496631662078016893..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: José Guilherme Merquior’s Verdict on Foucault’s ThoughtLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53788787816798499062017-04-27T17:27:28.347-07:002017-04-27T17:27:28.347-07:00Merquior was no neoliberal! He was a CLASSICAL lib...Merquior was no neoliberal! He was a CLASSICAL liberal. He, in fact, despised neoliberals, adopting Croce's term 'liberismo' to describe neoliberals like Friedman, and minarchists like Mises and Nozick. He also deemed Hayek to be a liberist, but he's wrong about that.Andrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14158747104536027894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-69238164814631803882016-03-25T08:10:10.894-07:002016-03-25T08:10:10.894-07:00Thanks for the article. If you read French, you mi...Thanks for the article. If you read French, you might want to read Jean-Marc Mandosio's "Longévité d'une imposture : Michel Foucault" who expands on Merchior's critique while adding many delightful anecdotes. Foucault also fiercely defended the Iranian revolution of the 1970s...A. Lecerfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-90820749404833540862015-04-24T17:02:32.519-07:002015-04-24T17:02:32.519-07:00I guess Foucault wanted to be just an iconoclast, ...I guess Foucault wanted to be just an iconoclast, he really didn't know what happened next. So much that I was at Latin America ESHET meeting and I heard from a presentation on Foucault and economics that the French are having enough of him - I guess people are starting to moving away from him.<br /><br />Also, it surprised me that you cited Merquior. He is a great but relatively ignored Brazilian thinker - given the putrid condition of current Brazilian conservative thinking (serious, there is nothing but demagogues), he is a breath of fresh air (also, I'd qualify him as a classical liberal conservative rather than a neoliberal - closer to Röpke than Friedman). He did wrote a good history of liberalism that I'd recommend, even if he messed up on Keynes (you'll understand why if you read it, though he still recognized him as an important liberal author).Rafael Galvãohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11157054230089977432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-87269115694927784072015-04-17T11:53:55.872-07:002015-04-17T11:53:55.872-07:00Enlighted post... Lamentablemente, estas ideas est...Enlighted post... Lamentablemente, estas ideas están incardinadas en muchos grupos y partidos. Este post me ha recordado un historiador francés, marxista arrepentido, que me me pareció muy bueno: Jean François Furet. Le conoce? qué opina de su libro "le passer d' une Illusion?www.MiguelNavascues.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00880006105532291958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-37494215192232532762015-04-16T06:43:17.212-07:002015-04-16T06:43:17.212-07:00For those in a hurry: https://www.youtube.com/watc...For those in a hurry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA<br /><br /><i>Anyone on the Left who defends objective truth and is suspicious of Marxism...</i><br /><br />For what it's worth, that largely describes Marxists. ;)<br /><br />Foucault was kind of doing his own thing, though. <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/foucault-interview/" rel="nofollow">A recent Jacobin article</a> has some pertinent bits and bobs, quoting Foucault's friend Paul Veyne's famous remark that he didn't believe in Marx, or revolution, "in private he snickered at fine progressive sentiments," etc. <br /><br />In particular, it suggests that his association with Marx had more to do with opening doors than anything:<br /><br /><i>It should never be forgotten that joining a “school,” or associating oneself with a certain theoretical perspective, means associating oneself to an intellectual field, where there is an important struggle for access to the dominant positions. Ultimately, calling oneself a Marxist in the France of the 1960s — when the academic field was in part dominated by self-identified Marxists — did not have the same meaning as it does to be a Marxist today.<br /><br />Concepts and canonical authors are obviously intellectual instruments, but they also correspond to various strategies for becoming part of the field and the struggles over it. Intellectual developments are then partly determined by relations of power within the field itself.</i>Hedlundnoreply@blogger.com