„Why any state solution is the continuation of oppression, poverty and violence“
Thinkshop on the 17.12.2023 18.00 CET
Link to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84135086714?pwd=YNXY3L9L5RFcbaYmSW8LZqvm1Uh4ql.1
This thinkshop will
1.) argue why fighting for independence, the creation of state societies, as the history of de-colonialisation shows and as shown in the case of the current Middle East conflicts no matter of one or two states, why fighting for independence is the continuation of poverty and oppression and show that poverty and oppression is the essential nature of these state societies. It will argue a) how in these states and heir political system is in one or the other way the exclusion of people from the decision making about their fundamental living conditions and b) that economically pursuing any live aim via money, set into force by nation states as the only allowed way of pursuing any life aim, results in the poverty of those who produce this money wealth. c) From the point of view of the entire dependency of the existence of citizens on their nation state the world is a battlefield of national societies fighting against each other about jobs, that is about the existence (survival) of these national citizen societies. Nationalism, racism and hence the demarcation and hostility towards other nationals and their state is a natural feature of citizen societies in a world of nation states, thus the reservoir of violence ready for the explosion if needed for the rivalries among these nation states…..
2.) It will then argue, why and how the contemporary scientific discourses among critical thinkers under the approach of a „de-colonization“ are the way to create and to stick to the dreamy illusions of independence, that is of a nation state serving the needs of people, by – falsely – explaining the existing continuation of oppression and poverty in these independent states as a not really reached independency and by doing this how this feeds this project of independence with all its illusionary expectations, with which the oppressed and poor people are agitated for fights for independence, fights for which these people sacrifice their lives. An ongoing drama in the former colonized world, now – substantially – consisting of the very independent states and their citizen societies, an achievement of independency for which people sacrificed and sacrifice their lives, today – though in different ways – experienced by the people in the Middle East, in Israel and Gaza, in their fights for independent states.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop Masterminds 2, J.E. Stiglitz: A global mastermind in critical economic thinking – a critic of capitalism or a critic of the critique of capitalism? 3.12.2023, 18.00 CET
For further information please scroll down to the very bottom of this page.
Link to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81600157666?pwd=n6Mh2VYokJUHaKDDObAGG4JgUEYkSA.1
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop: „About the war on Gaza“ – A controversy
25. November 6 pm CET
The thinkshop will be a controversy about a paper from Sari Hanafi titled “About the war on Gaza” and comments by Michael Kuhn.
You can find Sari`s paper here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FT8kIATtz6vRB8SVd0IsMO3sB9ji7R10/view?usp=share_link
MK comments are here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SVciMrfU8KGqIijNZSGGj5y5KsxDGqlO/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106005586832802236032&rtpof=true&sd=t
War on Gaza MK comments elaborated version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cORKpVvBSNhioAFErvNxBYViFV-1DEDS/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106005586832802236032&rtpof=true&sd=true
Link to join:https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86146930561?pwd=DKJvLWX0lKkmpmbHanY736UbVSRpqn.1
___________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop: What is the German raison d’état – why a good German today must be against peace and for war
Link zur deutschen Version:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xC_8CcsN-siJXEyNX6vp1xIvqkKf3nkR/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=106005586832802236032&rtpof=true&sd=true
Thinkshop date: 26. 11.2023 18.00 CET
Link to join:https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87406921792?pwd=52IDMd8Gi23cZmYeLt5VRJ1uMCjZZc.1
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction: A case of a violation of the German raison d’état
A good person, even if he does not have German nationality, but works in Germany as a footballer, must be against peace and in favour of war these days. People who are in favour of peace, otherwise the highest moral good, are at risk being prosecuted and might be punished.
“I am against war and violence. I am against the killing of all innocent civilians. I am against all forms of discrimination. I am against Islamophobia. I am against anti-Semitism. I am against genocide. I am against apartheid. I am against occupation. I am against oppression.” El Ghazi, footballer, a man of Dutch nationality
This commitment to all the highest moral values, which actually also apply or used to apply in Germany, earned its author the accusation of having violated the German raison d’état.
And this raison d’état has been very recently clarified by a statement of the German Bundestag:
“Israel has a right to self-defense. Israel’s right to exist cannot be relativized by anything.”
And this statement in favour for war contradicts what the man said to speak out in favour of peace and against war. And that is his mistake, an offence against the German raison d’état. He can say that elsewhere, but not in Germany, here in Germany he is violating the valid raison d’état, regardless of which nationality he belongs to.
Why is that the case?
The birth of the German post-war raison d’état….
The German raison d’état has been created related to the genocide of the Jews in Germany[1] and is a constitutive element of the German raison d’état:
“Just as in Israel, which came into being in part as a result of the Holocaust, West German society gathers around the memory icon of the Holocaust and draws from it one of its constituent moments.” Ofer Waldman – 27.01.2022, in: https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/holocaust-gedenken-und-erinnerungskultur-100.html
With the exception of Germany, most states that have killed the peoples of other states in their wars, whether winners or losers, generally deny that they have committed genocide with their wars but have only pursued war aims. In contrast to other states, Germany has explicitly acknowledged its genocide and, in the first step of the constitution of its raison d’état, made it a genocide due to a moral failure. [2] On this basis of this abstraction from all political reasons for the genocide and its conception as a failure of morality, and only on this basis, which abstracts from all political aspects, is it possible not only to construct a constitutive element of its raison d’état from this moral self-incrimination of the genocide it committed, but also to make Germany a recognised state in the world of states again by means of this moral self-incrimination. For this abstraction every question, i.e. the question of a why, is denounced in advance as a moral failure, even before any thinking about a why, and this denouncement asking any why was spelt out for all professional and everyday thinkers as a proof of immorality by none other than the world-renowned academic thinker Adorno, with his statement that the consideration of genocide as nothing but a moral failure neither “must nor should be justified”.
Whilst one may concede to contemporary witnesses of the genocide in Germany that it can boggle the mind, the fact that scientists take the view that even asking the question of who did what and why is morally reprehensible and that this not only “must” but “should” not be justified, that is to say, that they reject the urge to investigate and the desire to want to know why this genocide took place, who thus morally reject the need for knowledge as a sign of the immorality of thought, this raises the question of what the difference between a scientist and a priest actually is and makes clear how unquestionable the moral consideration and thus how self-evident the ban on reflection on this genocide was and is in Germany. Or rather a scientist on a national mission?
That a commitment to a moral evil, which is to be made from a condemnation expressly beyond any reasoning, is both unstable and in constant need of remembrance and makes good and evil interchangeable, is obvious, as it is obvious that this makes the commitment to this commitment a permanent task on the one hand, but also allows on the other hand good and evil to be defined as required.
This construction then based on this abstraction towards a matter of morality goes like this: Germany derives the “constitutive element” of the German raison d’état from this explicit acknowledgement of its guilt in the genocide it committed, in that it derives its recognition as a positive moral nation from this explicit acknowledgement of its negative moral failure by explicitly acknowledging its genocide as a moral failure. [3]
Even if this logic of post-war Germany serves the political calculation of Germany’s self-presentation to the world of states,
“By protecting Israel, we are protecting ourselves from the demons of our own people’s past.”[4]
this logic of deriving the morally positive from a commitment to the morally negative owes itself to the logic of Christian thought, which has guided not only political thought, but thought in general, right through to the European social sciences.[5] The affiliation to evil ascribed to man by the Christian doctrine of man frees him from evil and makes him a good person if he entrusts himself to God and places his life in the hands of the commandments of Christianity, who forgives the sins of natural evil humanity and thus makes him a good person. If one replaces God with his secularised form of political power of citizen societies, which gives these citizen societies their commandments, their state, this logic succeeds by confessing their evil and thus turns without any problems the citizens and their political power into representatives of the good – but only for people who share this Christian logic. This logic would be unthinkable under other forms of moral thinking characterised by other religions.
In order for this proof that Germans can present themselves worldwide as representatives of the good because of their commitment to evil to work, the commitment to genocide, which is otherwise unusual among states, emphasises its uniqueness, because only this uniqueness of moral reprehensibility gives the commitment to this reprehensibility the right moral greatness of the person making the commitment. Any comparison of the German genocide with other genocides is therefore seen as a relativisation of the uniqueness of the German genocide and thus as a relativisation of the confession of guilt that constitutes its raison d’être. From the point of view of this specifically German raison d’être, this relativisation of the uniqueness of the reprehensibility of the genocide is considered a “trivialisation” of the genocide, and thus a relativisation of the German raison d’être and is therefore punishable under German law. The TAZ states:
“Holocaust denial is part of the incitement to hatred paragraph. The paragraph is much older than the Holocaust, it dates back to the imperial era. Back then, it criminalised “incitement to class struggle” and was used to suppress socialists and communists. The Nazis subsequently used it to persecute pastors who preached critically. ….
In the 1980s, the laws against incitement to hatred were tightened further, and in 1994 the current paragraph 3 of section 130 of the German Criminal Code was introduced, which criminalises the public denial, approval or trivialisation of National Socialist crimes.” https://taz.de/Gesetz-gegen-Holocaustleugnung/!5457020/
Germany proves its moral greatness by professing its unique evil in its relationship with another state, the State of Israel, which, as is customary for states, sees itself as the representative of the people it rules. The proof of Germany’s moral quality in its political relationship with Israel lies in Germany’s guarantee of the sovereignty of the State of Israel, a guarantee in which, as is usual with states, the guarantee of the existence of the sovereignty of this state is equated with the existence of Israeli citizens – even if this costs them sometimes their existence.
“…. Israel’s security is a German reason of state.” (Chancellor Scholz)
Every denial of the sovereignty of the Israeli state serves as the reason for this assurance and, with this assurance of the Israeli state, the assurance of the German raison d’état and does so all the more the more it unconditionally commits itself to the state of Israel and its policies with judgement freed from all the usual moral considerations and does so all the more effectively the more it publicly celebrates this commitment against any reservations about the policies of the state of Israel.
When Israel wages war, German citizens therefore prove themselves to be good Germans by refraining from applying all the moral standards with which they are otherwise familiar in their judgement of Israel’s policies and instead of being for peace as usual, they are against peace and not against war but for war.
….and its usefulness for new wars
What reads as a state’s commitment to the inviolability of another state’s sovereignty and thus as a subordination to its reason of state – after all, Germany is subordinating nothing less than its sovereignty, i.e. its existence as a state, to the sovereignty of another state, Israel, – what reads as if it were the surrender of its national sovereignty, this is in fact the way in which Germany, after its defeat in the Second World War with its failed attempt to establish itself as a global world power, manages its return to the circle of world powers with the help of its role in the EU alliance of states created by Germany and France in the face of the world powers that emerged from the Second World War, the USA and the Soviet Union.
For Adenauer it was clear:
“If the country first had recognition from the Jewish side and, first and foremost, from Israel, the way would be open to further independent statehood for the Federal Republic, to normalisation, to an end to its pariah status among the nations. So this was not so much about the Jews and Israel, but about the self-image of a democratised, transformed Germany: denazification – done.” Quoted from: “Israel’s security as a German reason of state, Meron Mendel in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, April 2023
The extent to which Germany has succeeded in aligning this EU alliance of states with its political world power ambitions can be seen from the fact that the EU has adopted this element constituting the German raison d’être as its own, and has certainly done so for political considerations of the states, but also on the basis of the Christian-inspired thinking shared throughout Europe and its logic of the dualism of good and evil.
Under the very German title “Holocaust denial”, Wikipedia states:
“Since 2008, EU member states have been obliged by framework decision to make “the public condoning, denial or gross trivialisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” punishable by law if these crimes were committed “on the grounds of race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.”[3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetze_gegen_Holocaustleugnung
The German state has – as can be seen from the successful implementation of its view in the EU – successfully created proof that its policy is that of a global role model of human values with its confession of its moral guilt, which is not emphasised by any comparison with other genocides, and with this proof has created a moral position for itself among its citizens and vis-à-vis the world of states thanks to its confession of genocide, and therefore maintains this proof long after the lost world war with the constant celebration of its confession of guilt.
From this perspective of the global moral role model, presented in what has recently been called a “values-led foreign policy” towards the world of states, the contradiction between the otherwise cultivated moral values in favour of peace and against war is obviously no contradiction, so that now, in the case of war it means to be against peace and in favour of war against peace with Germany’s enemies of war – as is currently the case with Russia – there is from this views no contradiction at all, because in this moral view Russia’s war is an offence of evil against peace, which, in this logic, can only be restored with a victorious war against evil and with this the worldwide validity of moral values. It is as simple as that from the point of view of the German raison d’être, which has been purified by fascism thanks to its Christian-inspired thinking.
The fact that this commitment against peace and for war is also proving its worth in the case of the war in Ukraine, where as a good German one must also be against peace and for war until victory over Russia, makes it clear that the German raison d’état with its confession of guilt for evil was created in relation to Israel, but can otherwise be mobilised for wars of all kinds and the necessary confessions of violence, freed from all the usual moral reservations, made the highest moral value of a good German.
The success of the German state’s policy of insisting that German citizens share the German raison d’état is shown by the fact that only a few people realise[6] that the seriousness with which every German, regardless of whether he lived during fascism or generations later, regardless of their views about fascism and its war crimes, that this equalisation of all citizens, which does not stop at any differences between citizens and which is not relativised by any principles of democratic models of society, is in line with the raison d’être with which the denazification of Germany is made the permanent task of all German citizens, and that this purification via the equalization of citizens from fascism with “its claim to totality”[7] thus is an original fascist idea of the state.
The fact that this German raison d’état is then also applied to citizens of other states, as in the case of the Dutch footballer Ghazi, makes it clear that Germany regards its raison d’état as the best raison d’état for other citizens of whatever nationality. As a much-quoted German poet by the name of Emanuel Geibel once wrote in 1861: “The world may recover from the German character”[8]. Geibel 2.0 one might say, or 3.0, if one adds the First World War.
As can be seen from the fact that the more indignant the moral condemnation of violence is, the more unrestrained the use of violence is justified by this moral condemnation of violence, morality is a means of justifying political interests. What these political interests are in the case of the war in the Middle East will be discussed at the Thinkshop.
[1] Wikipedia says: “Holocaust (1941-1945): Genocide of the Jews during the National Socialist era with 5.6 to 6.3 million deaths, especially since the attack on the Soviet Union.” https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völkermord
This is explained:
“The final decision to murder all Jews was made in the course of the war of extermination against the USSR from the summer of 1941. Germans and their helpers then pursued the goal of systematically murdering all Jews in the German sphere of influence until 1945, from 1942 also using industrial methods. This crime against humanity was based on the state propagated anti-Semitism and the corresponding racist legislation of the Nazi regime.” https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
[2] How widespread the view of fascism as a moral failure was can be seen in critics of fascism such as Adorno: “The demand that Auschwitz not be repeated is the very first place a matter of education. It precedes all others to such an extent that I neither believe I must nor should justify it.” Adorno, T:W., (1971), Education for Maturity. Frankfurt a.M. Suhrkamp, 1st edition, page 88
[3] Incidentally, this was not the case without controversy from the very beginning after the war, but only became established as a valid reason of state when the Social Democrats took over the government, symbolised by W. Brandt’s “genuflection” in 1970 in front of the memorial commemorating the Jewish ghetto uprising of 1943. See also “Israel’s security as German reason of state, Meron Mendel in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, April 2023
[4] Martin Schulz, SPD quoted from: “Israels Sicherheit als deutsche Staatsräson, Meron Mendel in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, April 2023
[5] On the Christian origin of the constituent concepts of the European social sciences, see also: Michael Kuhn “How the Social Sciences Think about the World’s Social , IBIDEM, Stuttgart 2016, page 160ff,
[6] “It is also remarkable for another reason that this explanation has hardly been questioned in public or in politics. After all, the concept is based on a pre-democratic idea: raison d’état, most prominently described by the Florentine state thinker Niccolò Machiavelli in his major work “The Prince” (1513), originally meant that a state may and should assert its (power) interests, even if this involves violating the rights of individual citizens or breaking the law, as the good of the state is more important than the good of the individual. This means that the idea of raison d’état is actually fundamentally opposed to the rule of law.“ https://www.blaetter.de/ausgabe/2023/april/israels-sicherheit-als-deutsche-staatsraison-was-ist-das-postulat-wert. The idea that laws, which no one other than the state makes, should be above the subject who makes them, that the raison d’état is subordinate to law, is a strange idealism of the state.
[7]„…. typical elements of fascist currents ….., such as …..claim to totality,…” , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faschismustheorie#Überblick
[8] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am_deutschen_Wesen_mag_die_Welt_genesen
________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop Masterminds 2, Stiglitz: A critic of capitalism or a critic of the critique of capitalism?
3.12.2023, 18.00 CET
To join send me an email or just click on the link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89628514338?pwd=nXbj7p73EtrEL0oy21jOGcRJ2rraQa.1
J.E. Stiglitz has a reputation, especially among critical thinkers around the world, as a left-wing critical economist, even critical of capitalism and he actually is worldwide one of the most quoted economic thinkers. His theoretical work in fact deals with a central theme of a critique of capitalism, the theme of poverty and wealth, discussed among critical economists like Stiglitz or Piketti as inequality. And what does Stiglitz write about inequalities – that the critique of an unequal distribution of poverty and wealth is not “inevitably” a critique of capitalism:
„This paper critiques the notion that unfettered inequality is an inevitable consequence of contemporary capitalism, and provides an alternative, new framework for analyzing changes in income and wealth distribution.”
Interesting: the economist seen worldwide as critical of capitalism argues that “unfettered inequality” does not inevitably justify a criticism of capitalism. So what is he, a critic of capitalism or a critic of the critique of capitalism?
The thinkshop will take placed on December 3, 2023 at 18.00h CET.
If you want to participate, just drop me an email.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop „Ukraine, Israel, etc.: Nation states conflicts, violence and morality“
5.11.2023 18.00 CET
Please note the shift in Europe from summer- to wintertime.
The thinkshop will share views about nation state conflicts, violence and morality
The meeting will take place on November 5., 2023, 18.00h CET
To prepare please read my blog: https://michael-kuhn.net/2023/10/13/ukraine-israel-etc-moral-nation-state-and-violence/
To join send me an email or just click on this link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86887466001?pwd=Dy6PhAbYyqrL04hnZQfktBdWrbQgqd.1
If the timing of the meeting is inconvenient for your time zone, please send me an email to discuss other options.
Nation states conflicts, violence and morality – considerations on the adaptability services of the morality of democratic citizen societies to the reason of state in times of peace and of war
1.The freedom of opinion in times of peace and war
That states grant their citizens permission to mean what the citizen wants to mean, and that this permission, the freedom of opinion, ends when the citizen violates the reason of state, i.e. the opinion of the one granting this permission, is only logical. If opinions of citizens are not a matter of course, but are allowed to them by their ruling power, then this power also decides what it wants to hear and what not. In the case of the wars in Ukraine, Israel or elsewhere, this means that opinions which are something other than the view given by the reason of state, i.e. which are something other than sharing the state’s partisanship in matters of enemy and friend, are forbidden, i.e. punishable. This therefore already applies to opinions that do not wish to adopt this partisanship over such wars, i.e. the question – decided by reason of state – about friend and foe. One is still allowed to express one’s own opinion on Ukraine, Israel, etc., but only after one has made a commitment to the desired partisanship including a commitment to violence against the enemy state, free of all moral concerns – that is, that one does not have any other opinion. This is then, after all, quite enlightening in terms of moral, politics and violence.
2. The morality of citizen societies
Moral – the rationality of citizen societies that has coagulated into a personal world view about how to perform social life is brought to its essence in the assessment of conflicts between states that are carried out with military force. The will of the citizens, regulated by state violence, is ennobled in the German language with the term “dürfen” (to be allowed) to an independent auxiliary verb and in Dürfen (to be allowed) is given the form of their free will corresponding to the duties of life in citizen societies. In the everyday life duties of citizen societies, the imagination “if everyone did what they wanted” is a horror, and the commandments of morality are the formative life principle of citizen societies, in whose world this is pre-sorted into commanded good and forbidden bad. This also includes the bad of the violence of citizens and the good of the violence of states, i.e. the monopoly of violence of states, which is executed against everything that is politically defined as bad violence.
In times of warlike conflicts between states, any moral relativization of violence disappears, as the distinction between good and bad violence still does. Warlike violence by states is morally good because it makes the sovereignty of states of citizen societies with the equation of existence as citizens and existence of state, and thus the safeguarding of state sovereignty, the supreme moral duty against violent attacks on state sovereignty, whether alleged or real attacks, and states can assert their sovereignty, i.e. their power over their citizens, without moral questions with violence freed from any moral concerns against other states that deny this sovereignty with their violence. And the more warlike violence is propagated as a moral duty, the more it indulges in excessive acts of violence. What is required from the citizen is unconditional obedience and moral ruthlessness. In times of war, the moral prohibition to kill others from the morally bad becomes the morally highest commandment, the supreme good, to kill the state enemy, an enemy to which every citizen of the enemy state is made, thanks to his citizenship.
What’s more, the mere posing of moral questions is then considered an indication of a denial of the citizen’s duty to defend his state, which is the highest form of morality. Above all, questions about the why of excesses of political violence, that is questions about which state wants what against another state and what it wants it for, are all the more forbidden the more the violence escalates with the help of the verdict of the question of a why without interference with such questions about the why of violence. If the question of a why and a what for of political conflicts and of even more the why of the partisanship demanded by the state is asked, this in itself is regarded as clear evidence of immoral partisanship for the enemy party to the conflict.
3. The adaptability of the morality of citizen societies towards state rationales in peace and war
3.1. Inner peace and outer peace:
Citizen’s view: Violence and morality during piece
- Inner peace, morality of citizenship
If you look at what the moral principles in citizen societies are, they mirror an everyday civil war, you find that they are nothing else about but about forms of violence: executed violence, domesticated violence, all about handling their systemic violence:
- Moral in citizen societies – it’s all about violence: peace, tolerance, peaceful, etc etc
- And, scientific thinking about citizen societies is also a document of violence: The leading concepts constituting scientific thinking in citizen societies, operate with violence incorporated in – as they see it – any society: Psychology: resilience, Sociology: social cohesion and inclusion, Political Science: Protecting of the vulnerable against the powerful, Economy: scarcity/poverty, Anthropology: from race to understanding cultural diversities, etc etc…
Inner peace, the practiced (domesticated) violence of citizen societies: Where does all the violence in citizen societies’s morality come from?
How citizen societies work: The conceded materialism of citizens societies, their economy and their political power monopole
- The continuous everyday creation and domestication of conflicting social relations prone to violence
- created and domesticated by the political violence monopole of citizen societies with its means of – nothing but violence
- citizen societies life: an everyday civil war imposed on the citizens and directed and domesticated (not abolished) by the monopole for violence with its means of violence
Citizens view outside peace
- Domesticated violence in the morality among citizens and demarcations towards other nationally or elsewise constructed demarcations: nationalities, foreigners, races, cultures etc.
- Citizenship and nationalism, the world-market: an economic/political battlefield among national societies fighting against each other about their benefits from the global economic growth of business.
3.2 Moralities for war
State view: Outside peacekeeping/war
Outside piece: a never completed mission of nation states through war: State sovereignty is territorially limited, the rationale of nation states is economically and politically territorially not limited, – on the other hand: state sovereignty is indivisible (see Israel): Peace through war is the ever ephemeral solution. Therefore: in any nation state military power facilities and the according laws for wars ever exist during peace for peacekeeping.
Citizens from peace to war
What is then the shift in morality from free citizens of civil societies to henchmen of their state powers, or: How does the transitions from free citizens to unquestioning acolytes of states work in times of war?
- From the critical expression of opinion to subordination to the views dictated by the reason of the state.
- from tolerance towards other nationals to sorting a society into friend and enemies, inside and outside
- From being allowed, the form of will of a conceded materialism, to the pursuit of interests according to the reason of state in foreign policies (Don`t use gas from Putin)
- From humanistic moral principles to the adherence to unscrupulous state violence against state enemies
3.3 Then: Is this, asking for a moral shift from peace to war a false question?
Is the question how can people shift from moral values condemning violence to call for violence against foreign enemies a false question, if the moral principles in peace are mirroring nothing else but the violence of social relations in citizen societies? It’ always all there. Is this, calling for violence not needed for violent actions against other nation states? Apart from the existence of violence in peace, firstly, as a matter of fact, no state makes his decision for such actions dependent on the moral views of their people, on what people think about their outside policies? And: Serving a state for wars is not a choice people are given by their states. Is then this question about a shift in morality a wrong question, because this shift is not needed in many respects, its there anyway and if not it does not matter ? So: Are people ready for war as they are during peace?
Is it the case, that no such moral shift is needed, because how people think and practice their live agendas is already the very way to fulfill their services for the rationale of their nation states in peace and therefore also for war? Is the citizen view of and for inner peace the very view for war? Is then the correct question rather this: is it the case, if nation states have succeeded to accumulate so much wealth and power to challenge the sovereignty of other states, then they have already successfully domesticated their people for using them for their nation state rationale without major disturbances by the citizens and their live priorities and that is for the creation of a sovereign economic, political and military power, that thanks to these successful services of their citizens sees the need to extend the power beyond their national sovereignty towards questioning the sovereignty of others? In other words: does the discovery of violence in war times mean that this discovery only reveals a slightly ignorant view about all the violence and about “the other’s” during peace?
This is certainly the case. However, politics during peace and politics for war show too obviously a shift in the morality propagated by politics and the media, a shift with which citizens are agitated for war, though, if they share this or not is not a precondition for war. Indeed, the view of states in wartimes shifts from advocating humanistic moral principles towards proclaiming an adherence to unscrupulous state violence against state enemies, for whom the peacetime moral principles, their domesticated violence is freed from the moral restrictions of their violence towards a non-domesticated violence. In times of war, the domesticated violence in the morality of citizen societies is freed from its domestications and violence against the enemy becomes the supreme moral imperative. This is showing the multiple use and ways in which states use and play with the morality of citizens dependent on their policy agendas, thus benefitting from the very nature of morality, that is to not ask any questions, especially replacing with their distinction in good and bad any questions about the why of wars, thus making the citizen’s services for wars this supreme moral mission.
And there is another question: Is there at all any country among those imperial powers, which is not always during peaceful times for their national societies involved in wars anywhere on the globe? Does this not show that the peace morality allows wars, at least those wars abroad in which only the professional violence servants, the state soldiers are “doing their jobs”.
4. Within morality: Towards good and bad, the extinction of the why, the logic of morality, thinking beyond reasoning, the simplistic world view and it’ s logic: how easy it is shifting from good to bad, the christian logic of good and bad, making bad good…
5. Beyond morality
On the other hands, another point remains: nation states can also not do their wars if there were relevant parts of their people who would not only detect hezitations within their morality, but were seriously against wars, because they do not share the state rationales, neither what they mean for themselves nor for the citizens of the enemy states…
In other words: any moral troubles about what is good and bad about war and peace would disappear if people would raise the very questions about the why’s, the very questions their politicians try to drown in the moral principles they propagate as the best way making up one’s mind – not only about wars.
Finally: If the freedom of opinion, discussed at the beginning, therefore is the best framework to raise such questions and to share answers on them with others, this is another questions one should raise – again better without the moral considerations, if this permission to say what one wants to say is good are bad.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop 3 about Race and racism 29.10.23, 18.00h CET
Race: How a myth, an invented communal characteristic is enforced as a way of life by political force, or: Struggles conceptualizing citizen societies communities without a conceded materialism
A note for people who wanted to join today: please note there was a time change of 1 hour from summer to winter time.
To join send me an email or just click on the link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85751799790?pwd=rczpGGoeDzeBvsx2tjOqu0ZvXUTZZu.1
Thinkshop rationale:
Though race is a myth, a creature of colonialism imposing social qualities to humans as their nature, with which the colonialist thus denied the status of a citizen, humans they brutally oppressed and exploited, using their myth of races to justify their oppression of the colonized people, despite of its origination during colonialism until today race is for many people a serious characteristic constituting and distinguishing communities of humans. But not only does the myth of race also exist in those modern citizen societies among their citizens, which were not colonized but which were and are citizens of the colonizing citizen societies, paradoxically the post-colonial citizen societies which are no longer colonized but now also citizen societies, continue to consider races as a characteristic of the nationality of their citizenship. Even more paradoxically, critical thinkers mostly with nationalities from the former colonized world insist on and maintain their belonging to a race as the constitutive element of their nationality and argue for an equality of races. Critiquing race as what it is, a myth, is “immune” against any critique and the critique of a creature imposed on humans by colonialism is often rejected as an act of colonialism, as an act of racism. To make it even more paradox, if not slightly crazy, colonialism was the way of capitalism to exploit parts of the world and the critical thinking coining itself „de-colonial“ thinking widely spread across todays world, this critical thinking considers its insistence on the creature of capitalism, on race, as an opposition against capitalism. A lot of things to be sorted out. Why all this is the case, why it is so difficult to criticize people who not only believe in race, but who find the critique of race and of racism is an act of racism, these questions will be reflected upon on this thinkshop.
Thinkshop agenda/topics
Introduction
Finding a shared communality of humans:
A historical episode: Levi Strauss and his conflicts with UNESCO, the organization representing the nation states on the world, the representatives of the ruling powers, insisted that there must be a communality of humans gathered by nation states, Levi offered instead race the more dynamic concepts of culture
– On the resistance against a critique of a positive racisms/”equality of races” among critical thinkers today (de-colonialism discourses)
– Insisting on alternative communalities based on the concept of races : A national hero: Rizal and how he rejected the negatively conceptualized racism, the good race, “black is beautiful”, today’s race equalities
1.Reality and products of the mind
Products of the mind: Theories and myths -—both thoughts and myths are creatures of human mind, but they are very different
Theories:
….about a methodological mysticism in thinking
theories and (?) reality
– Reality and theory in everyday thinking: the theoretical power of factual constraints over thinking, “being determines consciousness” (Marx), the communal must in everyday knowledge, ruling what one must do
– Reality and theory in scientific thinking, teleological thinking and its preoccupied thoughts, mythological forms of scientific disciplinary thinking: thinking through hyphotheses and the mythological concept of “theory” and of reality as “empiricism”,
– the relativism of scientific knowledge invites myths as scientific knowledge: religious social science approaches
Myths: experienced insults, made an oppressive social reality
– myths and (?) reality
– The reality of myths, the nature of myths and their persuasiveness, their power: race is a practiced politically executed definition of a communality of humans, defined and imposed on humans with the violence of a ruling power, creating the power of myths
– The power of myths over thinking, the Christian foundations of disciplinary thinking
– Myths and their power in a world of “factual constraints”, the factual constraints of an imposed communality, from race to culture, imposed on people via their ruling power: slaves, races, citizens
– conceptualizing communalities is always top down, from below is no option
2. Characteristics of mystical products of the mind and of the myth race
– Theories about myths and the myth of race, the methodological racism of Anthropology
– Why disciplinary thinking cannot criticize myths: the false dis-prove of race and its contributions to the continuation of the myth race
– Why the concept of race is a false construct of a communalism of humans
– Peculiarities of the myth of race, differences with religion and nationalism, the separations of nationalism from religion in the citizen societies and their conceded materialism
– The conceptual progress conceptualizing communalism: from the static concept of race to the dynamic concept of culture
– The de-colonialization of the world, the transformation of the world into a world of citizen societies, their differences and the struggle of the new citizen societies for their recognition, the role of race in constituting national identities without the economic basis of nationalisms
– Myths and their instrumentalization by states for the cultivation of nationalisms, especially in the post-colonial citizen societies lacking the conceded materialism
3. How to break the power of myths and the myth of race – and how not
– The theoretical nonsense and misery of a reverse racism
– The negation of the negation of the concept of race
4. The fatal errors of a world view about a global south versus a global north – colored against white – rivalries among the “privileged” about ruling positions
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop 2 about Race and Racism 3.9.2023, 11 am CET
Topics
1. What is race? What it says about humans and what it it is politically used for.
2. What do disciplinary social sciences say about race?
a) Anthropologie – and its post-colonial followers: culture and ethnicity
b) Race in post-colonial thoughts
1: race refuted as a scientifically invalid concept ;
2: race in de-colonial thinking re-activated as a positive categorization of humans arguing for an equality of races.
3. What to do against racism and what not (reverse racism).
Date: 29.October 2023, 18.00 CET
To join send an email to michaelkuhn@mkuhn
Date: 3. September, 2023 at 11 am CET.
To join send an email to michaelkuhn@knowwhy.net
To register please send an email to michaelkuhn@knowwhy.net.
Link to join:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87389391056?pwd=MjJVK1dFQVl3TVVxRi9lT0YwalNiQT09
My thoughts about race and racism in the disciplinary social sciences
Notes about race and racism – How to critique and how not
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop Series “Critique of the Decolonization of social thought”
Thinkshop 4: How decolonial thinking further develops disciplinary social science theorizing: From the self-criticism of critiques of capitalism towards creating national identities and the preparatory work of the Historical Materialism
25. June 13.00 PM CET
Link to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81528033829?pwd=Q1NHWGlJck9tZU5raFZBWTR4Z1kwQT09
Thinkshop 3: “Thinking through space – the Epistemology of de-colonial thinking (Chakrabarty, Seth, et al)“https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81528033829?pwd=Q1NHWGlJck9tZU5raFZBWTR4Z1kwQT09
21. May. 2023, 10 am CET
Link to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81738633294?pwd=dk9tRGhuZkFXU293SXErL1hTUGUzdz09
To read what I will present please click on the link “MK, Notes about Eurocentrism” below under Thinkshop 2
Thinkshop 2: “Eurocentrism” – a critique completing the universalization of the “Western” theories
NEW DATE: April 30, 2023 10 am CET
Link to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86766308845?pwd=MnlSeGRHczVLT2RlUENyQWpxRkdYQT09
Meeting-ID: 867 6630 8845
Kenncode: 338433
Thinkshop 1 : Introduction: Legends about the De-colonization
Starting 12. February, 2023, 10 am CET, 2022
Around the nineties, not coincidentally, firstly, with the end of the alternative society project, the Soviet Union, an end that, secondly, established the global single rule of the US-Imperialism over the world of nation states and, then thirdly, with the end of the transformation of the colonized part of the world towards nation states and market economies, a new wave of critical thinking occurred, coined de-colonial thinking. And this thinking – this is my finding about what this de-colonial thinking does – is everything else but opposing what troubles human`s life in this world, poverty and political oppression.
Departing from a new critique of those theories from the “West” framing thinking about the world at that time as they do until today, despite of this now thirty years lasting new kind of critique, a critique arguing that these theories are centered on the European societies, a critique coined “Eurocentrism”, as one can already see from this notion of a “Eurocentrism”, this critique introduces the concerns of politically constructed entities as the concerns of thinking, preferably global political entities, such as the Europeans, then imaginary political entities such as the “North” versus the “South”. And despite of its critical intentions this thinking, coined de-colonial thinking, results not only in the final universalization of the very way of theorizing of the very European disciplinary social sciences and strengthens their rule over thinking around the world, but it also results in the creation of theories, while opposing the globally ruling nationalism of the “North”, with which this de-colonial thinking promotes all sorts of alternative nationalisms. With these nationalisms of a “South” de-colonial thinking thus arrives at social thought serving various politically constructed demarcations of people based on their nationalities, ethnicities or even races, the very kind of social thought providing the world’s people with views, only nation states use and benefit from for their hostilities, finally for their wars, demarcations, often more hostile than all the very well known demarcations created by the “Eurocentric” social sciences.
Despite of all good intentions de-colonial thinking helps with its thought to adapt people’s views to what troubles them, to their poverty and to their political oppression.
To share my critique of de-colonial thinking I organize from February 2023 on a series of 7 Thinkshops discussing the following topics
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop 1: Legends about what happened under the notion of post-colonialism, February 12, 2023, 10 am CET 2022.
The zoom-link for the first webinar will be sent to you via email before the meeting and posted here.
Thinkshop 2: Eurocentrism – opposing theories without their critique – What is non-eurocentric thinking (Amin, Chakrabarty)
Thinkshop 3: Thinking through space – the Epistemology of de-colonial thinking (Chakrabarty, Seth, et al)
Thinkshop 4: How decolonial thinking further develops disciplinary social science theorizing: From the self-criticism of critiques of capitalism towards creating national identities and the preparatory work of the Historical Materialism
Thinkshop 5: The creation of alternative nationalisms of de-colonial thinking: Indigenization of theorizing (Wallerstein, S. Alatas, Dos Santos, et al)
Thinkshop 6: The Non-Discourses among indigenized theories (F. Alatas, Sato, et al)
Thinkshop 7: Scientific and political outcomes of de-colonial thinking
These thinkshops are based on my book titled “The Social Science of the Citizen Society, Volume 1: Critique of the Globalization and Decolonization of the Social Sciences” and a series of video presentations on Youtube supplemented with a paper summarizing my main points of critique in these video presentations.
For watching the video presentations please go to: https://michael-kuhn.net/video/
For reading my book please click here: https://michael-kuhn.net/publications/
A free working version of this book you can find here: https://michael-kuhn.net/working-papers-4/
Notes for the thinkshops 1-6 can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FmZdUfYdM872Z13p9BV17lrccnkP8WA1/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106469827050948153850&rtpof=true&sd=true
Thinkshop 1 will be hold on the 12. February 2023, 10 AM CET
For each Thinkshop there will be a paper outlining the main statements discussed on the meeting. These papers will be posted 1 month before the meeting.
To register please send an email to: michaelkuhn@knowwhy.net
Link to participate: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/2964506378?pwd=Y05RUTI1VUFEd0l6aERmejQwbUc1Zz09
The participation in these thinkshops is free.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop Series: Masterminds of critical social science thinking
Overview:
Thinkshop Masterminds 1: Bourdieu, The forms of capital, 1986, Thinkshop 25.09.2022
Thinkshop Masterminds 2: J. E. Stiglitz, Origin of Inequality, 2005, Thinkshop 03.12. 2023
Thinkshop Masterminds 3: I. Wallerstein, European Universalism, The Rhetoric of Power, 2006
Thinkshop Masterminds 4: U. Beck, Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity, 1992
Thinkshop Masterminds 5: P. Geertz, The interpretation of Culture, 1973
Thinkshop Masterminds 6: M. Foucault
Thinkshop Masterminds 7: T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1996
Thinkshop Masterminds 8: J. Blondel
Thinkshop Masterminds 9: S. Seth, Beyond Reason, Postcolonial Theories and the Social Sciences, 2021, Thinkshop 15.6.2022
Thinkshop Masterminds 2, J.E. Stiglitz: A global mastermind in critical economic thinking – a critic of capitalism or a critic of the critique of capitalism?
3.12.2023, 18.00 CET
To join send me an email or just click on the link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81600157666?pwd=n6Mh2VYokJUHaKDDObAGG4JgUEYkSA.1
J.E. Stiglitz has a reputation, especially among critical thinkers around the world, as a left-wing critical economist, even critical of capitalism and he actually is worldwide one of the most quoted economic thinkers. His theoretical work in fact deals with a central theme of a critique of capitalism, the theme of poverty and wealth, discussed among critical economists like Stiglitz or Piketti as inequality. And what does Stiglitz write about inequalities – that the critique of an unequal distribution of poverty and wealth is not “inevitably” a critique of capitalism:
„This paper critiques the notion that unfettered inequality is an inevitable consequence of contemporary capitalism, and provides an alternative, new framework for analyzing changes in income and wealth distribution.”
Interesting: the economist seen worldwide as critical of capitalism argues that “unfettered inequality” does not inevitably justify a criticism of capitalism. So what is he, a critic of capitalism or a critic of the critique of capitalism?
Thinkshop Masterminds 2 “J.E.Stiglitz, a global mastermind in critical economic thinking – a critic of capitalism or a critic of the critique of capitalism?” in the thinkshop series “Masterminds of critical social science thinking” will discuss what this international superstar among critical economists is telling us about capitalism.
The thinkshop will take placed on December 3, 2023 at 18.00h CET.
If you want to participate, just drop me an email.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Thinkshop Masterminds 1, Bourdieu: The forms of capital
__________________________________________________________________________________________