Professor Trompsky is back!

Professor Trompsky, you said that the current pandemic is the defining moment of capitalism’s moral refinement preparing its coming demise? Could you explain?

Well, uhm, we see that more and more people are pushed towards precarious jobs with no security whatsoever and more importantly devoid of any real interaction with their peers. That, you know, forces them to beg for work they don’t really want to do, often from behind their screens in their own homes. Yet they keep doing it, and the entire system is banking on it that they do. Why is that?

I don’t, I mean I…

Well, it’s rather trivial. They fear destitution, is the obvious answer. But they did that before too. What is new now is they are alone. No unions. No-one to remind them why it is wise that they stay on, no-one but themselves. And who fails at motivating themselves, will fail at their job.

The work they do is of course unnecessary, that is a threshold we crossed a long time ago. But the requirement for self-motivations is new. It spawned an entire industry, as you know.

Professor, how does this lead to the downfall of capitalism?

Well, uhm, look, the physical coercion is replaced by self-coercion, in other words moral force. And that is much more volatile depending on the political sphere. We will see a lot of populist on the left compelling workers to demand meaningful work.

That sounds like a good thing?

Yes, certainly, but it is driving a stake in the heart of capitalism. Such a demand can only be met with a policy that reverses the tendencies we see today. The only meaning capitalism has to offer is money, so it should start there. And I don’t see how that is possible without cooperatives and worker ownership.

But is still require a revolution?

Oh, it will be a silent one, these populists will not call for an uprising but facilitate the proliferation of worker owned industries, sucking up all labor and so crippling the old capitalist bodies.

Professor Trompsky, insightful as always, we thank you for this interview.

 

 

 

Professor Trompsky is back! was originally published on Meandering home

Professor Trompsky #2

Welcome back professor Trompsky, glad you took your time to talk about the controversial Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
– Thank you. These are very serious matters yes. I think he is the least capable person in America today to become a Supreme Court Justice. Every which way you look at it, this nomination is a catastrophe for our country and should be aborted at all costs.
So you are calling for abortion of his nomination. Could you elaborate?
– If we carry this nomination to term, we will have bred a monster. Brett Kavanaugh is a religious fanatic of the sort that would put the church above the constitution. The High Court will turn into a Medusa whose sole purpose it is to protect the powers of the president.
When you say we must prevent Supreme Justice Kavanaugh from happening, what exactly do you have in mind? Polonium?
– This is not the time for flippancy. I personally think there are more civilized ways than radioactive chemicals.
Such as?
– We just keep repeating the sins he committed as a young adult. Did you know that FFFF means “Find ’em, finger ’em, fuck ’em, forget ’em”? And that boofing is anal ingestion of alcoholic beverages?
This is common knowledge, yes.
– I don’t see how this man still has time for serious legal scholarship, let alone the position of highest judge in the country.
I understand your point professor Trompsky. What do you suggest as a means of last resort, to avoid this twit to ascend to the throne of the American judiciary?
– [shrugs] I don’t know. Maybe burn down the court house.

Professor Trompsky #2 was originally published on Meandering home

Professor Trompsky #3

Professor Trompsky, what do you think of the intellectual climate of today?

There is a worrying decline of what I call the culture of wisdom. More often than not, people engaging in debates are more concerned with cementing their own argumentation, making their own narrative waterproof as it were. Instead of trying to integrate the stories of their opponents in their own Grand Narrative, they readily dismiss them as fundamentally flawed. I miss the eagerness to achieve such inclusivity, the wonder of how an other thinking mind can draw sometimes totally different conclusions. This presuposses, I am well aware, a fundamental respect and we shall call it a belief in the intellectual capabilities of their opponents. Rather than treating them like an annoyance they want to get rid of, I miss the intellectual attitude that wishes to celebrate disagreement in order to proceed to a higher truth. Recently I wrote about this and produced the following formula. We should attempt to reduce a strange narrative we encounter to our own.

Don’t you think this is the faux nostalgia that comes with age? Was it not the case that intellectuals in the cold war era, dismissed each other for chosing the wrong side?

[chuckles] No, I can give you a concrete example. Take the political debate. If we talk about Venezuela, our initial response almost always reveals our political core belief. Media outlets who, under the influence of market pressure, tell you what you want to hear rather than what you need to know, amplify this phenomenon.

Professor Trompsky #3 was originally published on Meandering home