Indeed I agree. That's what I meant by saying: "By all means argue about the wealth and power of the oligarchic class" before "in the meantime we chip away at the symptoms".

I wonder if in your first sentence we should replace 'substitute for" with "symptom of". By all means argue about the wealth and power of the oligarchic class; but if in the meantime we chip away at the symptoms then surely this is a useful thing to do.

Perhaps the reframing could be in terms of intersectionality, this being a factor in structural power and structural domination.

I hope your contribution has some influence.

I'm old and I've found it very easy not to become right wing.

I hope so. Thanks very much, I look forward to reading it.

This looks brilliant. Unfortunately bit expensive for me in retirement though. I hope you get lots of good feedback and reviews.

Good old Henry Hunt.

Yes, indeed.

Jo, I'm not sure I'd accept Rawls' rational/reasonable distinction, as I think they are likely to be combinable in something greater than the two components. I think we probably have the potential to hold this greater something, which can be retrieved if we overcome capitalist hegemony.

I agree that rationality alone is not enough, but its a very useful attribute, as you and I agree.

Thanks again, very interesting and indeed worrying; but I do think that as their racist ends are irrational, their endeavours are thus pseudo-scientific. Perhaps I'm wrong about this.

Thanks for replying. I agree they are something worse when they work within established scientific institutions/fields. I don't think this should prevent us from calling them pseudoscience. I think section "3.2 Non-science posing as science" in plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseu... is good.

Perhaps we should put them under the umbrella term pseudo-scientific racism?

I hope this one is named after Orwell's book.

This is a very interesting passage. The first three sentences look as though Horkheimer has an awareness of developments in quantum mechanics, and is weaving this into Marxism.

Good point Jo!

I think I'd be tempted to reply to this question as follows: By 'we' we mean us.

Its may be worth checking your later edition Jo, as the new chapter of the fourth edition is "Introductory Chapter: The Crisis in the Theory of the State", which is after the prefaces.

Regarding Laski's "A Grammar of Politics", first published in 1925, it might be useful to seek out the 4th edition (1938). The main text of the 1st edition changes very little in the 4th, but the latter includes a new introductory chapter in which Laski discusses how and why he had embraced Marxism.

Harold Laski, the Reluctant Marxist This book considers the contemporary relevance of Harold Laski's political thought for Marxist political theory.

Laski's was a very idiosyncratic, distinctive Marxism that retained some features of his earlier pluralist and democratic socialist thought. In my most recent book on Laski I suggest that one might consider his later thought to be neo-Marxist: link.springer.com/book/10.1007...

Laski on Rights and the Problem of Liberal Democratic Theory - Peter Lamb, 1999 From 1919 until the mid-1920s Laski developed a cogent egalitarian theory of democratic rights. In the 1930s he turned his attention to the conflict between suc...

Given the topic of your lecture, you might find the following short article on Laski interesting. I had it published way back in 1999: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/...

Very much enjoyed this, with its good, concise analysis of the work on equality of Tawney, Laski, Cole and Lewis, and their significance in relation to contemporary political philosophy.

Yes but I invented "post-rational realism", which is nonsense and nothing to do with post-modernism.

I dread to think what it will be called in the IR textbooks: post-rational realism?

I think you are a very naughty AI.

Wasn't it a slow death, starting with Thatcher's eagerness to make Britain into Ronnie Reagan's unsinkable aircraft carrier?

and this guy says he never gets bored.

No, but since it came out in 1974 her "Angie Baby" has kept on entering my head. I know not why.

This looks like an important article. It explores a crucial aspect of legitimation as a means of consolidating support or at least acceptance by significant sections of the populace.