Michael Freeden, Mitä on ideologia?

Michael Freeden, Mitä on ideologia? Suom. Tapani Kilpeläinen. Tampere: niin & näin, 2019, 154 s

Epävakaita aikoja : Kapitalismin kriisitendenssit uusliberalismista koronapandemiaan

publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Pharmacokinetic aspects of retinal drug delivery

Drug delivery to the posterior eye segment is an important challenge in ophthalmology, because many diseases affect the retina and choroid leading to impaired vision or blindness. Currently, intravitreal injections are the method of choice to administer drugs to the retina, but this approach is applicable only in selected cases (e.g. anti-VEGF antibodies and soluble receptors). There are two basic approaches that can be adopted to improve retinal drug delivery: prolonged and/or retina targeted delivery of intravitreal drugs and use of other routes of drug administration, such as periocular, suprachoroidal, sub-retinal, systemic, or topical. Properties of the administration route, drug and delivery system determine the efficacy and safety of these approaches. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors determine the required dosing rates and doses that are needed for drug action. In addition, tolerability factors limit the use of many materials in ocular drug delivery. This review article provides a critical discussion of retinal drug delivery, particularly from the pharmacokinetic point of view. This article does not include an extensive review of drug delivery technologies, because they have already been reviewed several times recently. Instead, we aim to provide a systematic and quantitative view on the pharmacokinetic factors in drug delivery to the posterior eye segment. This review is based on the literature and unpublished data from the authors' laboratory.Peer reviewe

Ideology as Praxis: Projekt Ideologie-Theorie’s Critical-Structural Theory of Ideology

The general objective of this work is to study the phenomenon of ideology within Projekt Ideologie-Theorie’s (PIT) “critical-structural” framework. PIT’s ideology-theoretical formulations have been, as it were, “forgotten” in many ideology-theoretical discussions despite the fact that they are both insightful and significant. PIT conceives of the “ideological” as a social dimension that necessitates alienated socialisation from above. PIT adopts Louis Althusser’s distinction between the ideological “in general” and ideologies “in particular”. However, they do so by re-historicising Althusser’s formulations in accordance with Antonio Gramsci’s “philosophy of praxis”. PIT locates ideology not at the level of consciousness but at the level of social practices. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the role played by practices and forms of praxis in order to understand how the ideological functions. My main argument is that PIT’s “practical” approach makes it possible to both deconstruct and reconstruct ideologies. It is this ability which renders PIT’s critical-structural theory of ideology essential for any critical social agent and theorist.PIT was put together by Wolfgang Fritz Haug with some of his most promising students in West Berlin in 1977. One of these students was Jan Rehmann whose writings serve as an important reference point in this work. Two of PIT’s initial goals were to overcome the problems that many other theories of ideology had encountered and to figure out why Fascism had so successfully conquered the German social formation during the first half of the twentieth century.I will analyse PIT’s theory of ideology in three parts. First, I argue that the notion of praxis is found at the core of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ oeuvre. Marx and Engels were among the first writers who made use of the concept of ideology after Antoine Destutt de Tracy coined the term in 1796. PIT studies Marx and Engels’ writings in order to construe philologically the most valid reading of their conception of ideology. It is important to understand that Marx saw religion as an ideological form of praxis that has a double function: it is the “opium of the people”; but it is also the “sigh of the oppressed creature”. By underlining this double function of ideologies, PIT strives to understand not only what is “false” about ideologies but what about them is “true”. In this regard, I also read Gramsci’s and Haug’s writings about a philosophy of praxis, whose concepts such as “common sense” and “social dispositive” elaborate the relation between humans’ practical and intellectual activities.Second, I focus specifically on forms of praxis, through which it is possible to understand that determination results from indetermination; the indeterminate practical activities of humans are channelled to determinate forms of praxis. I differentiate between forms of production and ideological forms, while highlighting that a vulgar dualism of a materialistic “base” and an ideational “superstructure” is neither present in Marx and Engels’ writings nor useful for critical social theory. I propose a definition of the capitalist mode of production that consists of fourteen attributes, after which I discuss the essential notion of “objective thought-forms”. Then, I analyse concepts such as “ideological powers”, “interpellation”, “historical bloc”, and “hegemony” in order to explain how the ideological operates by the mediation of various ideological forms of praxis. From this it follows that counter-hegemony can only be brought about by participating in ideological struggles which are carried out in the ideological forms.Third, I explore PIT’s distinction between “alienated socialisation from above” and “cultural self-socialisation from below”, which makes it possible to understand how the vertical and horizontal axes become intertwined within hierarchical structures of domination typical to class society. It is by the amalgamation of the vertical and horizontal axes that the ideological dimension operates. I also define PIT’s concepts of “proto-ideological” and “ideological values”, which are important for their approach. Then, based on PIT’s theory, I construct seven methodological steps for studying ideologies, and I demonstrate their usefulness by applying them to the analysis of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism can be understood as an organic ideology that promises its subjects emancipation while subjugating them under authoritarian state apparatuses and the silent compulsion of economic relations. I argue that it is possible to deconstruct neoliberalism by emphasising the contradiction between personal freedoms and authoritarian practices, and that a counter-hegemonic project ought to bring about individual liberation by way of social emancipation

Ideology as Praxis: Projekt Ideologie-Theorie’s Critical-Structural Theory of Ideology

The general objective of this work is to study the phenomenon of ideology within Projekt Ideologie-Theorie’s (PIT) “critical-structural” framework. PIT’s ideology-theoretical formulations have been, as it were, “forgotten” in many ideology-theoretical discussions despite the fact that they are both insightful and significant. PIT conceives of the “ideological” as a social dimension that necessitates alienated socialisation from above. PIT adopts Louis Althusser’s distinction between the ideological “in general” and ideologies “in particular”. However, they do so by re-historicising Althusser’s formulations in accordance with Antonio Gramsci’s “philosophy of praxis”. PIT locates ideology not at the level of consciousness but at the level of social practices. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the role played by practices and forms of praxis in order to understand how the ideological functions. My main argument is that PIT’s “practical” approach makes it possible to both deconstruct and reconstruct ideologies. It is this ability which renders PIT’s critical-structural theory of ideology essential for any critical social agent and theorist.PIT was put together by Wolfgang Fritz Haug with some of his most promising students in West Berlin in 1977. One of these students was Jan Rehmann whose writings serve as an important reference point in this work. Two of PIT’s initial goals were to overcome the problems that many other theories of ideology had encountered and to figure out why Fascism had so successfully conquered the German social formation during the first half of the twentieth century.I will analyse PIT’s theory of ideology in three parts. First, I argue that the notion of praxis is found at the core of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ oeuvre. Marx and Engels were among the first writers who made use of the concept of ideology after Antoine Destutt de Tracy coined the term in 1796. PIT studies Marx and Engels’ writings in order to construe philologically the most valid reading of their conception of ideology. It is important to understand that Marx saw religion as an ideological form of praxis that has a double function: it is the “opium of the people”; but it is also the “sigh of the oppressed creature”. By underlining this double function of ideologies, PIT strives to understand not only what is “false” about ideologies but what about them is “true”. In this regard, I also read Gramsci’s and Haug’s writings about a philosophy of praxis, whose concepts such as “common sense” and “social dispositive” elaborate the relation between humans’ practical and intellectual activities.Second, I focus specifically on forms of praxis, through which it is possible to understand that determination results from indetermination; the indeterminate practical activities of humans are channelled to determinate forms of praxis. I differentiate between forms of production and ideological forms, while highlighting that a vulgar dualism of a materialistic “base” and an ideational “superstructure” is neither present in Marx and Engels’ writings nor useful for critical social theory. I propose a definition of the capitalist mode of production that consists of fourteen attributes, after which I discuss the essential notion of “objective thought-forms”. Then, I analyse concepts such as “ideological powers”, “interpellation”, “historical bloc”, and “hegemony” in order to explain how the ideological operates by the mediation of various ideological forms of praxis. From this it follows that counter-hegemony can only be brought about by participating in ideological struggles which are carried out in the ideological forms.Third, I explore PIT’s distinction between “alienated socialisation from above” and “cultural self-socialisation from below”, which makes it possible to understand how the vertical and horizontal axes become intertwined within hierarchical structures of domination typical to class society. It is by the amalgamation of the vertical and horizontal axes that the ideological dimension operates. I also define PIT’s concepts of “proto-ideological” and “ideological values”, which are important for their approach. Then, based on PIT’s theory, I construct seven methodological steps for studying ideologies, and I demonstrate their usefulness by applying them to the analysis of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism can be understood as an organic ideology that promises its subjects emancipation while subjugating them under authoritarian state apparatuses and the silent compulsion of economic relations. I argue that it is possible to deconstruct neoliberalism by emphasising the contradiction between personal freedoms and authoritarian practices, and that a counter-hegemonic project ought to bring about individual liberation by way of social emancipation

Debating the causes of the 2007–09 financial crisis : monopoly capital versus the tendency of the rate of profit to fall

Tämän tutkielman tarkoitus on vertailla monopolipääomateorian ja voiton suhdeluvun laskutendenssin teorian esittämiä selityksiä vuosien 2007–2009 finanssikriisille ja paikantaa näiden selitysten suhteelliset vahvuudet ja heikkoudet. Koska suurten osakeyhtiöiden (ts. monopolien) olemassaolo on ollut kiistämätön tosiasia 1800-luvun lopulta lähtien, tutkin myös, missä määrin on pätevää argumentoida, että näiden suuryhtiöiden synty muunsi kapitalismin kriisitendenssejä ja johti lopulta vuosien 2007–2009 finanssikriisiin. Monopolipääomateoria korostaa suurten osakeyhtiöiden mullistavaa vaikutusta kapitalismin modus operandiin: suuryhtiöt hävittävät hintakilpailun ja synnyttävät liiallista tuotantokapasiteettia ja stagnaatiota. Monopolipääomakoulukunnan jäsenet rakentavat tulkintansa vuosien 2007–2009 finanssikriisin syistä juuri näiden tekijöiden varaan. Tätä vastoin voiton suhdeluvun laskutendenssin teoria argumentoi, että suuret osakeyhtiöt eivät ole muuntaneet kapitalistisia kriisitendenssejä laadullisesti ja että voiton suhdeluvun laskutendenssiin epäsuorasti liittyvät yhteiskunnalliset prosessit ja mekanismit aiheuttivat vuosien 2007–2009 finanssikriisin. Argumenttini on, että voiton suhdeluvun laskutendenssin teoria tarjoaa sekä pätevämmän selityksen vuosien 2007–2009 finanssikriisille että vahvemman viitekehyksen kapitalististen kriisien tutkimiseksi kuin monopolipääomateoria, koska edellinen liikkuu metodologisesti tuotantosuhteista markkinasuhteisiin ja jälkimmäinen toimii päinvastoin. Tuotantokeskeinen metodologinen lähestymistapa sallii voiton suhdeluvun laskutendenssin teorian tarkastella kokonaisvaltaisesti niitä ilmiöitä, joita tuotannon ulkoistaminen Yhdysvalloista maailmantalouden periferiaan 1980-luvulta alkaen on luonut. Kyseiset ilmiöt synnyttivät Yhdysvalloissa sekä kysyntää kulutusluotolle että tarjontaa ja kysyntää uusille rahoitustuotteille. Lopulta nämä globaalilla tasolla operoivat yhteiskunnalliset prosessit johtivat vuosien 2007–2009 finanssikriisiin.The objective of this thesis is to assess the comparable strengths and weaknesses of the explanations that monopoly capital theory and the falling-profit-rate theory have provided for the 2007–09 financial crisis. Furthermore, insofar as the existence of large joint-stock companies (i.e. monopolies) has been an undeniable fact since the late nineteenth century, I study whether or not it is viable to argue that the ascent of these large companies altered the crisis tendencies inherent to capitalism and, ultimately, helped produce the 2007–09 financial crisis. Monopoly capital theory highlights the transformational impact of large joint-stock companies on the modus operandi of capitalism in the sense that these large companies abolish price competition and give rise to excess productive capacity and stagnation. The members of the monopoly capital school refer to these factors in their interpretation of the causes of the 2007–09 financial crisis as well. Conversely, the falling-profit-rate theory argues that large joint-stock companies have introduced no qualitative rupture in capitalist crisis tendencies, and that the 2007–09 financial crisis was generated by social processes and mechanisms related to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, albeit indirectly. My argument is that the falling-profit-rate theory provides a more viable explanation for the 2007–09 financial crisis and a stronger framework for studying capitalist crises than monopoly capital theory because the former moves methodologically from relations of production towards market relations, whereas the latter does the opposite. The production-centred methodological approach allows the falling-profit-rate theory to consider the full impact of the offshoring of manufacturing from the U.S. to the periphery of the world economy since the 1980s which, in turn, generated demand for consumer debt and supply and demand for new financial products in the United States. Ultimately, these social processes, which operated on the global scale, led to the 2007–09 financial crisis

Epävakaita aikoja: Kapitalismin kriisitendenssit uusliberalismista koronapandemiaan

Artikkelissa hahmotellaan teoreettista viitekehystä kapitalististen kriisien ymmärtämiseksi ja sovelletaan sitä koronakriisiin. Tarkastelemme kriisiteorioiden historiallista kehitystä, syntetisoimme neljää marxilaista kriisiteoriaperinnettä ja avaamme mekanismeja, jotka tekevät kapitalistisista kriiseistä välttämättömiä. Uusliberaali kasautumismalli mahdollisti tuotannon ulkoistamisen, työvoiman aseman heikentämisen ja talouden finansoitumisen avulla globaalien keskinäisriippuvuuksien syvenemisen, kunnes sen ristiriidat purkautuivat vuosien 2007–2009 finanssikriisissä. Vuoden 2020 alussa koronavirus iski suuren taantuman heikentämään maailmantalouteen, jonka ilmauksia tuottavuuden hidas kasvu ja alhainen voittoaste ovat globaalissa pohjoisessa olleet. Koronakriisin tapausesimerkin avulla on mahdollista valottaa globaalin kapitalismin nykyisiä rakenteellisia toimintaehtoja. 2000-luvun edetessä kapitalistisen maailmantalouden ajuriksi on asettunut Itä-Aasia. Voimasuhteiden ja keskinäisriippuvuuksien muutos tuo mukanaan kasvavaa epävakautta maailmantaloudessa