I've always considered expropriation through the periphery to be imperialism ala Lenin. Fascism is taking those imperial techniques and applying them internally, when you are no longer able to compete on the periphery (no more lands to conquer etc.). I suppose it is just 'redefining' the periphery though. Again, my understanding of Bonapartism comes from readings of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Robert Dees, and random discussions with trotskyists who seem to have read something other than actual Trotsky because they seem to have a completely different definition entirely.
If Losurdo is actually able to create a concrete definition applied well, I should read it and applaud him.
I agree though we are entirely disagreeing on semantics, not the overall picture here.
Its more than that even. If we get into power, we may even be able to finally shape a society where the fences aren't needed for the kindergarten anymore. But pretending we can tear the fences down now and declare that the kindergarten is 'liberated' is the height of idealism.
I am unsure as to the nature of how it is used within Losurdo.
In my experience though, it suffers the exact same problem as when liberals use the word 'authoritarian'. It supposedly is a a strict phenomena, wherein one party has a kind of dictatorial authority over everything regardless of class, but in practice, it is applied so generally and so vaguely as to be meaningless, wherein basic functions of any modern state become 'Bonapartist'. In any event, because the Democrats (the political party) themselves are not being subjected to the Gestapo, I would say that the America isn't even truly Bonapartist, it has all the hallmarks of the classical bourgeois dictatorship, as described by Lenin, while rapidly lurching towards fascism, which to be frank, the Fascists based themselves off of our model of governance as much as we based ourselves off of them for the creation of neo-liberalism. It's a dialectic.
Regardless, we are at least two to three major political developments down the line from Bonapartist being a useful description of modern events. We haven't even had a true revolution to be betrayed by a savvy military leader yet.
Honestly neither are all that particularly useful, as I have in my old age and Midwestern fashion, come to the conclusion that knowing the humidity matters far more than the actual temperature on a day to day basis.
Lacan is cool if you want to justify your love of young women and men, I suppose. I know it is technically more complex than that, but I haven't met a single person who really advocated for Lacan that wasn't also trying to sleep with their students.
It's not even that they had the best PR machine in the world, is was that Plato was a fascist little shit who was a Sparta-boo, and he was the primary source for most Greek history for a very very long time. Most Athenians thought Spartans were a joke because their ability to create a navy sucked (because they ran a slave economy).
To summarize, Jung believed in the idea of a collective psyche (collective unconscious), and that human culture isn't a primarily external phenomena taught between individuals, but something that is unconsciously received from the this collective psyche.
This has lead to all kinds of cool fictional ideas, such as the 'hero's journey' archetypes, or Warhammer 40k's idea of The Warp, or any number of sci-fi focused around the idea of human psychic development, around the idea that we will evolve to be able to access this collective unconsciousness.
However, it also leads to all kinds of strange things, such as the idea that these story archetypes are real human psychological profiles (a la Jordan Peterson) or ideas like 'love languages'. As has previously been stated, it essentially operates as psychological Tarot.
Basically, Jung is extremely fun when not taken seriously or scientifically, but can lead to very serious categorization errors. He has been thoroughly discredited within both anthropology, sociology, and psychology, and the only reason he is ever read is purely from a historical academic perspective.
Jung is profound in the same way TV Tropes is profound. He recognized patterns in human story telling.
Oh and as the other people said he was extremely fascist-adjacent, in not flirting with it himself. All around a piece of shit.
China has certainly come the closest. That said, maintenance, start-up and shut down are still human operations on most of those lines. However, for many of them they are at the point where they only need sensors and not visual confirmation, which is leagues ahead of where most American factories are.
I'd say that if you got Brennan in a room he would be some flavor of Anarcho-Communist. The issue is that he will never make that public because he is far too savvy an operator to do that. He has somehow (honestly through lots of luck, perseverance, and massive amounts of talent) gotten himself onto the gravy train, with a wife and kid, and he isn't going to knock himself off of it until he is good and ready to.
They will never be able to fully automate it.
To contradict @queermunist@lemmy.ml abit here, what automation allows for is the simplification and breakdown of repetitious tasks, such as monitoring or sorting. Sometimes these can be complex in nature, but simplified through automation. However, atart up, shut down, and maintenance are still human tasks and will remain so for the near and far future, alongside design, most visual quality control checks, and detail work.
However, to agree with what she said part of the problem is that companies will often get contracts under the assumption that the automation works perfectly, which as an engineer, trust me it never does, and businesses always short-staff their maintenance and automation departments because they hate the idea of someone sitting around waiting for something bad to happen (inefficiency to them) even though that is the proper workflow for those areas, which is hurry up and wait. It's wild that they understand that for sales and quality control, but if it's a blue collar worker suddenly they have to be sweating their ass off 24/7 or they are a drain on the company.
True automation will require a complete redesign of factories and machines on a scale unfathomable under capitalism.
Yeah it is almost as if every single bar and club needed to have some form of live performed entertainment on a regular basis, and not just once every three months.
Tbf the Catholic Church is the closest thing to a modern equivalent of the Imperium, being one of the largest and most strident holdout institutions to preach serfdom (outside of course, the UK and the US themselves, which is what the whole franchise was originally a parody of).
I just harp on how most modern Christians pretend to worship God but instead worship at the foot of Mammon. And I am a pretty strident atheist, but I meet people where they are at.
I've always considered expropriation through the periphery to be imperialism ala Lenin. Fascism is taking those imperial techniques and applying them internally, when you are no longer able to compete on the periphery (no more lands to conquer etc.). I suppose it is just 'redefining' the periphery though. Again, my understanding of Bonapartism comes from readings of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Robert Dees, and random discussions with trotskyists who seem to have read something other than actual Trotsky because they seem to have a completely different definition entirely.
If Losurdo is actually able to create a concrete definition applied well, I should read it and applaud him.
I agree though we are entirely disagreeing on semantics, not the overall picture here.