“Science” vs. Religion is a struggle over epistemology more than over fact. How do we know what we know? Different epistemologies may agree on what is real or even on the nature of existence to some degree. “”“”“Religion”“”“”" or Catholics or whatever, will have its own way of knowing how to know what is known. Capitalism has its way.
Usually when religious apologists use “science” to make a point they are using rhetoric to speak across an epistemological divide, and they almost always center facts–the products of epistemology–to ground the conversation. Every epistemology must ask others “Do your knowledge creators not agree with this fact?” to set or test basic ground rules for the discourse.
This exorcise actually disciplines religion in the favor of enlightenment science, because the enlightenment would never recognize an epistemology other than its own. The Catholic Church has to play capitals game to beg for recognition. I find it undignified on the part of the church that it would bend its own terms so that they even stand a chance at being recognized by capital–“Intelligent design.” Also, i think we all know that there are a lot of folks who eat up religious apologetics are still excellent at advancing capitalist empire. There is a lot ontological overlap between Christianity and Capitalism across the west so they actually have a ton in common anyway.
So what im saying is that this is not how capitalism uses science. There are no inconvenient facts when you dominate how knowledge is known. Power may be subject to some kind of hard “truth,” but such truths can be created, asserted, delegitimized, whatever. We can live in denial and capitalist relations can reproduce. We can live in full recognition of climate change and capitalist relations can reproduce. Both are true right now.
I don’t think his criticisms of the USSR or prominent cold war narratives actually helps him answer his question very well. Does he think that the Russian Federation would not or has not attempted to coexist with western powers? Is Russia no longer white now that it isn’t communist or something? Oh, and we are lacking leaders like Fidel etc.,… who took support from the USSR. Where such leaders just erasing their own struggle in favor of a East-West struggle by doing this? Were they racist against themselves by doing so?
A bit exhausting but needs some grounding to set this point up if he can make it better. The struggle against continuity with the Russian Empire is real, but I think there needs to be some way of addressing or challenging what the revolution achieved and what it means before we call Moscow the edge of white Europe. My understanding is that Eastern Europe has long functioned as a kind of periphery/semi-periphery to Western Europe. Interestingly enough, Cope writes about this haha. I don’t necessarily agree that Eastern Europe is white in the same way whiteness manifests in the west. I wish there was more clarity on this because its not like I don’t already have “this is a bit russiaphobic” already in the chamber, almost like I’m being baited so just make the point.
By who? And who recognizes this? I’m not saying there isn’t a good point in here, I just feel like we are erasing what the rest of the world has to say just to make this point that the USSR failed. Maybe others around the world agree to an extent that liberation efforts have been flattened. Does he talk about this more in his book? I haven’t read it all. It does have some third world orientation but I’m 99% sure it was all quantitative.
Seems potentially flattening of third world experiences. Again, who regards these struggles so cynically? The struggling masses?
I don’t disagree that the cold war is often used to oversimplify complex global relations or that the USSR was ultimately unsuccessful in the liberation project it espoused. Its just that if you are going to leverage the global south like this, I think it should be more apparent that Smith is officially grounded by the right voices. Otherwise, it comes across as sanctimonious, that we should be centering this group that agrees with him because they are poorer or less “powerful” than the USSR or something.