#Reading Capital and Ideology by Thomas Piketty. A large book you could certainly kill someone with.

Thus far (still in the introduction), I'm mostly seeing interesting and reasonable takes, but I'm somewhat struck by his general disdain for 'identity politics' which he uses interchangeably with 'identitarianism'.

It'll be interesting to see where that thread goes.

The main point of the introduction to #piketty so far seems to be to open up the reader to alternatives. 'Different paths are, and were, always possible' is a mantra hammered in again and again.

Another thing that comes up repeatedly in #piketty is the need to take 'seriously' the arguments and justifications given for inequalities, be they current or historical. This can help not only in understanding but also in actual argument: The need to maintain 'property rights' in the name of 'societal stability' is basically a reskin of the same argument used in favour of monarchy and feudalism, which is, arguably, a good point made against both.

Unjust things are unjust.

Of course, this being a #piketty book, there is a lot of focus on inequality, with even this introduction spending a lot of time investigating and dismantling various practices to decrease or increase it, and the justifications and effects.

Increasing the top marginal tax rates in a progressive tax system, for example, are a useful tool to combat inequality, according to him.

I'm not disagreeing, but i think ownership structures may need to be tackled as well.

And also uh.. money.

#piketty seems so far to take the ideological continuity of 'social democracy' as a given across the 20th and 21th century, which leaves him apparently baffled at its 'failure' to rein in inequality after regaining power post-80s (Reagan/Thatcher). This is, I think a mistake. We'll see where he goes, but in my view there are distinct parts of 'social democracy' that are publically emphasized mid-century and later, which belie an inner shift and alignment with the ruling class.

Ok I maybe spoke too soon. #piketty makes some incisive comments about 'broadly social-democratic' parties as opposed to conservatives, and the importance of the various class characteristics of the electorate and whatnot. I'm still not convinced that this isn't conflating things better kept separate, but I was probably too uncharitable above.

Had a little more time for #reading #piketty. I think I actually would characterise his arguments as _over-structural_ in nature - "social-democratic parties" are treated as entities that shift in focus and ideology over time, rather than as composed of people who may enter and be molded by said ideology and the material conditions into different and evolving shapes over time. There is a Hofstaderian Strange Loop going on here, I think, which has explanatory power on the rightward shift.

Still, while this mega-structural perspective is one I find somewhat lacking, it is absolutely preferrable, I think, to the over-individualized perspective induced by the hegemonic ideologies of our time.

Looking forward to the rest of this #piketty tome.

Finished the introduction of Capitalism and Ideology by Thomas #piketty, still a bit worried about his thus far entirely dismissive view on "identity politics", as well as the end proposal being a "just property regime" of global socialist federalism rather than a moneyless and propertyless society.

@pettter if you're worried by all books that don't promote a moneyless, propertyless society doesn't that limit your reading list somewhat?