[Daktoria]

Marx was interested in analysng the practical aspects of Judaism (and Christianity) rather than the idealised religious self-identity of the Jews. As he himself explicitly said: "Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew." This is, of course, an historical materialist analysis of the Jewish question.

But Marx's point was that the problematic ideological thinking was and is merely the idealised figleaf covering the real, practical essence of the Jews, their being-in-the-world to use a Heideggerian expression. If you confine yourself only to the ideological realm, then you fundamentally miss the point.

Either way, it doesn't do much good in civil discourse.

Pragmatism is easily riposted as, "Impractical TO YOU."

Then, you're out.

[Potemkin]

Either way, it doesn't do much good when trying to engage in civil discourse.

Pragmatism is easily riposted as, "Impractical TO YOU."

Then, you're out.

I can't understand what you're trying to say, Daktoria. Could you elaborate?

[Beren]

How do the Fascists here feel about Viktor Orbán? His seems to be the only genuinely right-wing, authoritarian government in Europe. It seems downright Pétainist to me.

How much are they concerned in Paris and Brussels? Do they think the same as you do?

(Constitution begins "God Bless the Hungarians"...)

That's how our national anthem begins.

"God bless the Hungarian
With good mood and abundance"

[Ombrageux]

Beren - Not much to be honest. But is basically portrayed as Fascist, what with the work camps, the Roma, the paramilitaries, the anti-gay stuff, the anti-abortion stuff, the media laws, etc. Probably this is a one-sided picture. Speaking for me, it seems Orbán's movement has entirely embraced a conservative-declinist interpretation of Europe, with liberalism as the source of that decline.

Potemkin - Wow. That sounds pretty anti-Semitic. But his description of hucksterism seems a pretty accurate account of capitalism in general and American culture in particular.

[Potemkin]

Potemkin - Wow. That sounds pretty anti-Semitic.

Only to modern ears - the Holocaust has changed the way such discourses are viewed. At the time it was written, Marx's essay would not have been viewed as being particularly anti-Semitic. And bear in mind that Marx was himself of Jewish origin, and was certainly not anti-Semitic in a racist sense. His criticism was of the culture of the Jewish people, as shaped by their historical experiences. And, of course, his main point is actually that we are all 'Jewish' now.

But his description of hucksterism seems a pretty accurate account of capitalism in general and American culture in particular.

Indeed. And what Marx is trying to do in this essay is to trace the historical and cultural origins of that hucksterism.

[Daktoria]

I can't understand what you're trying to say, Daktoria. Could you elaborate?

Say you're having a conversation over Judaism.

You say, "Judaism is bad."

You get asked, "Why?"

You respond with Marx's complaint over "huckerstering".

If you do that, you'll get stared at awkwardly or laughed out of town for being lazy. They'll say, "Just because you don't like huckstering doesn't mean everyone else doesn't like it. Besides, who said every Jew's a huckster? LOL."

End of conversation.

[Potemkin]

Say you're having a conversation over Judaism.

You say, "Judaism is bad."

You get asked, "Why?"

You respond with Marx's complaint over "huckerstering". [sic]

If you do that, you'll get stared at awkwardly or laughed out of town for being lazy. They'll say, "Just because you don't like huckstering doesn't mean everyone else doesn't like it. Besides, who said every Jew's a huckster? LOL."

End of conversation.

Ideologies and religions are neither good nor bad in themselves; they are merely idealised forms of self-understanding for various groups or classes of people. It is the practical aspect of the lives of such groups or classes of people - their 'being-in-the-world' - which can be either good or bad from the viewpoint of society as a whole. Marx's point is that the practical aspect of the Jewish people's being-in-the-world is hucksterism, and that this has, in the course of historical development, become the practical aspect of the being-in-the-world of the Christians as well. In a sense, we are all Jews now. And of course not everyone thinks hucksterism is a bad thing - hucksters think it's a very good thing. A bourgeois rentier feels no shame over the fact that he refuses to work and lives off the labour of the working class, just as a lumpen-proletarian long-term unemployed person feels no shame over the fact that he refuses to work and lives off the labour of the rest of society. And let's face it, if you can get away with it, then it's a rather clever thing to do. The point is to stop them from getting away with it. This can be easily done in the case of the lumpen-proletarian who refuses to work, but is rather more difficult in the case of the bourgeois rentier who refuses to work. The first requires only passing a few new laws; the second requires a revolution to change the mode of economic production.

[Daktoria]

Since when does the working class control discourse, Potemkin?

Your argumentation ultimately depends on a refusal to listen, embracing how you're accused of discrimination. Even among the working class, that endangers the disabled who can't work.

It's easy to relegate these people to the underclass and condemn them as hopeless. It's another thing to do what's right.

[Potemkin]

Since when does the working class control discourse, Potemkin?

Where did I say that they do?

Your argumentation ultimately depends on a refusal to listen, embracing how you're accused of discrimination. Even among the working class, that endangers the disabled who can't work.

It's easy to relegate these people to the underclass and condemn them as hopeless. It's another thing to do what's right.

I specifically noted in an earlier post that the rule 'he who does not work, does not eat' strictly applies only during the socialist phase, and is replaced under real, existing Communism with the rule 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. And disabled people or those genuinely unable to work were looked after even in the Soviet Union of the 1930s. The rule applied to those were able to work but refused to do so.

[Daktoria]

Potemkin, appeals to pragmatism have to be practical.

If I go in the real world and make your argument, nobody's going to listen. You're not being constructive.

As for your last segment, you're ignoring how people can fake disability.

[Potemkin]

Potemkin, appeals to pragmatism have to be practical.

Appeals to pragmatism? Practical? What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

If I go in the real world and make your argument, nobody's going to listen. You're not being constructive.

By that logic, only parroting the platitudes of bourgeois liberalism would be 'constructive'.

As for your last segment, you're ignoring how people can fake disability.

This is a trivial objection - medical checkups could address that problem; this is what happens already in Britain to monitor disability benefits.

[Beren]

Speaking for me, it seems Orbán's movement has entirely embraced a conservative-declinist interpretation of Europe, with liberalism as the source of that decline.

Correct. His governance is a socio-economic disaster, by the way.