Finally, even though the paper is based on a chapter in my PhD, it's also my first publication since defending it two years ago. In a way, it feels like moving on, both personally and professionally.
Have a look and dm for pdf. /fin

Second, the paper provides a reading of three theorists dear to me: Lefort on Machiavelli, Althusser on ideology and Nicos Poulantzas' theory of the capitalist state. I've written the text with the specific hope that the latter finds renewed recognition in social and political philosophy. /4

By doing so, the ideological dimension of the democratic political scene can be uncovered: democracy's theatrical acknowledgement of an open-ended future can hide how that future is structurally closed off or contained within market-conforming limits. /3

1) It criticizes how continental democratic theory overlooks the capitalist state . In addition to the 'show' of liberal democracy (public debates, parliamentary dynamics, etc) we must analyse its 'machinery' as well: the state institutions and structures in which that show is embedded. /2

🙏✋

End of rant. Im sure i missed a bunch of stuff and still have to read the good texts.

Why is race always a form of oppression? How does it oppress? Does it oppress in the same way in different cases? Questions that remain unanswered. Instead, race, class and gender become a black box with little explanatory value beyond merely pointing at things and saying: look class AND gender.

Or they fall into abstractionism, which doesn't help either. Race is a structure of oppression. How is it a structure? Are the state, or law, or markets also a structure? Are they similar types of structures?

Either they are merely descriptive. E.g Women from Mexican descent experience welfare state policies different than white women in the US. OK, but why? In order to answer that, you need to figure all these extra structures that are not explained as such. Saying "there is race" is not enough.

Instead we get confusing generalities: they are forms of social division, or structures of oppression, or a matrix of domination. But what are they and why can we call them that? This leads to this constant wavering between shallow empiricism and abstractionist structuralism ->

arising from the passive survival of antiquated modes of production, with their inevitable train of social and political anachronisms. We suffer not only from the living, but from the dead. Le mort saisit le vif!"

Those of you lamenting the fact that there's no gender balance with the keynote speakers: You're right and we're working hard to get that fixed. Not everything always goes according to plan.

If you're working in critical theory, the Marxist tradition or beyond, consider sending in an abstract. Don't hesitate to share with anyone who could be interested. Details are here: hiw.kuleuven.be/en/news-even... 2/2

Wants to be the Big Daddy figure but is in reality the creepy uncle