Recently, while searching through my local library (in search of locating a perhaps underappreciated political text) I found my eyes drawn to Capital and Ideology by Thomas Piketty, and found myself mesmerized by how it claims to connect capital (which I, at the time, interpreted as a direct reference to capitalism) to the ideological formations of the people (which I, at the time, rightfully interpreted in post-ideological terms). I was utterly disgusted however, when I began to read the book and found that this economist found it justifiable to provide an analysis of various socio-economic systems, without addressing the social aspect of these systems. That this author found it justifiable to posit theories, ideas, and structures as though they were their own ideals (when in reality are a rehashing of long understood propositions). That this human-being found it justifiable to remain impartial and provide blatant refusal to take a side or apply morality to his work, while simultaneously critiquing the concept of post-ideology, when he, himself, presents post-ideological stances and opinions through his refusal to assign moral weight to the systems he discusses.
I find it sufficient to declare that he uses the term ‘capital’, not in reference to the capitalist system of oppression, but rather as a buzzword to justify his economist stance on politics (a stance which he utilizes to justify his flattening of the social aspect of ideology, and his presentation of ideology as any system rather than a set of systems). I find it also sufficient to declare that he, as could be guessed by his economist background, is a capitalist who finds no benefit in properly critiquing the systems he presents. Yet, despite his ‘impartiality’, we still find the simmer of anti-communist propaganda poking through the edges of the book. While he dismisses slavery as little more than an extension of serfdom and diminishes its role in the capitalist system (another sin of his, to compartmentalize ideologies as separate rather than interconnected), he finds it adequate to reject the label of ‘Marxist’ with extreme predation and regularly criticizes the ‘great communist disaster’ indiscriminately throughout his books, while refusing to apply a moral imperative to any other system (not even in a positive manner). All that can be derived – or rather, understood – of his ideology is that he is no communist. Beyond this, his work remains so uninspiring and lacks any strong imperative that it finds itself resting into the very post-ideological slop he claims to despise!
Although one can understand why his neutrality has came forth; For him to apply morals it would first require for him to recognize his own ills. Coming from a petty bourgeois background, it is no question why this wife-beater finds it difficult to apply morality. I suppose its due to the fact when he holds up a mirror, he finds that it becomes difficult to so much as call himself hideous- and this applies especially when he speaks of the liberal ideology (which he chooses to critique and use as a basis for false consciousness). This also speaks to his stance on reform- providing ways to ‘relieve’ the people of their struggle without having to risk his own fortune in the context of true liberation. He finds himself straddling between liberal (giving him access to excess) and marxist (informing his fruitless critiques).
And as for being an economist- his background comes clear in his work. This is not a good thing- he finds himself repeatedly relying on rules and ‘idealized’ forms of the systems he discusses and analyses. For instance, when discussing the distribution of population in feudal France among the three classes, he repeatedly affirms the inability for the clergy class to reproduce, citing Catholic laws. And while true- it overlooks the fact that many (if not a majority of) the clergy did in fact marry and have children. The laws surrounding celibacy in the Catholic church were extremely lenient at the time- often permitting marriage, intercourse, and entire families to develop without major barriers to be held in their way. Similarly, when discussing the nobility, he regularly refers to them as the ‘warrior nobility’, defining them as the class who takes up arms and defines by their participation in wars. Which, although true at one point- was not true by the point he focuses in on (being the 16th century), with the nobility instead manifesting as an economic class (while theoretically still the warrior class), showing his disregard for idealist interpretation and ‘facts first’ thinking, which causes him to dismiss reality.
[Please Note : This Preface Is Incomplete]