Repeating myself, answering Julian Stallabrass at the LRB blog.

All the arguments are in the paper linked on the right side of this page, or on the this blog. All are obvious.

I just received a polite - four paragraph- rejection letter from the senior editor of a major university press, polite and encouraging but arguing that perhaps I'm a little behind the curve.  In the NYT today Raj Chetty says,  Yes, Economics is a Science, and in referring to those who say otherwise, he points to Kieran Healy,  Safe to say I still think I'm a bit ahead of it as least as arguments go.  But intellectuals qua intellectuals are always behind the curve.  Philosophers and "theorists" will always argue otherwise, but historians don't.  The curve is in decision-making, in actions, not ideas. Intellectualism, distinct from intelligence, is and needs to be retrospective. If someone is an artist and an intellectual, or a lawyer and an intellectual, they're wearing two hats. Philosophers and others who see themselves as intellectual engineers follow the model not of observation but invention; they wear only one hat and look forward. Formal and speculative reason are the most fragile forms of thought, and the most politically suspect.
---

Corey Robin writes again about "disruption" and the moral, philosophical, and esthetic culture of capitalism. I tried somewhere to remind him, without disagreeing, that disruption is a central tenet of modernism.

Unrelated to that I've been told to read Ranciere.