|
Obdicut posted:When you say it 'sucks pretty bad', from what perspective? For the sake of argument: my own?
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:All these things are part of what is meant by "unsustainable" though: the material conditions of slave owning societies (production techniques, population density, etc) evolved to a point where a new economic system, capitalism, arose, and eventually because of these changes wage labour becomes more economical to the ruling class than slavery. As an aside, Marx's own writings on the subject are interesting: http://www.sojournertruth.net/marxslavery.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:For the sake of argument: my own? Okay. What does 'sucking' involve? How are you not making a moral judgement when you say it 'sucks'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. What does 'sucking' involve? How are you not making a moral judgement when you say it 'sucks'? Right OK yeah sure in any discussion where you posit the existence of a freely acting agent you implicitly attribute its choices to a moral stance. It's very much because I'd rather not get bogged down in such discussions of philosophical concepts (not that I think there's no place for that) that I'd rather focus as much as possible on the descriptive materialist elements of economic theory, sociology, and political science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Right OK yeah sure in any discussion where you posit the existence of a freely acting agent with you implicitly attribute its choices to a moral stance. It's very much because I'd rather not get bogged down in such discussions of philosophical concepts (not that I think there's no place for that) that I'd rather focus as much as possible on the descriptive materialist elements of economic theory, sociology, and political science. Those descriptive elements are useless without an evaluatory framework, though, as you showed in talking about it. And furthermore, Marx's 'descriptive' aspect extends to the morla, or at the least the philosophical concept of what human nature is and the drives that underpin human economic activity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Is it not OK for me to ascribe value (a moral judgement, yes) to a reading of a text which avoids claims about ethics? And to ascribe more value to this than I do to any ethical claims? This is what I meant with this post http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3677666&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4#post437175509
Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Is it not OK for me to ascribe value (a moral judgement, yes) to a reading of a text which discards claims about ethics? And to ascribe more value to this than I do to any ethical claims? This is what I meant with this post http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3677666&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=4#post437175509 I don't understand what you mean at all. We're not talking about a text that discards claims about ethics. Furthermore, when you say that " In that sense, openly pointing out the reality of how a social relation of power functions is a radical act that always benefits the oppressed." How on earth do you define 'oppression' in the absence of ethical claims?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't understand what you mean at all. We're not talking about a text that discards claims about ethics. Furthermore, when you say that Sorry I was trying to say: a reading which focuses on the parts of the text which are not about ethics. And of course I am myself making ethical claims and moral judgements. One of which is that I'm saying: I'd rather use intellectual tools other than those of ethical discourse when attempt to understand and describe society/politics/economics because I see this as more productive (yes subjective statement of value). I don't really feel like this discussion is going anywhere :/
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Sorry I was trying to say: a reading which focuses on the parts of the text which are not about ethics. And of course I am myself making ethical claims and moral judgements. One of which is that I'm saying: I'd rather use intellectual tools other than those of ethical discourse when attempt to understand and describe society/politics/economics because I see this as more productive (yes subjective statement of value). But I don't see you actually doing this, because you're talking about the usefulness of this discourse in revealing 'oppression', which is an ethical description of society/politics/economics. If all you're saying is that Marx's economic theories are separable, sure. But why on earth would you, in order to talk about ethical claims like 'oppression', separate out the ethical claims of Marx? That's what I don't get: i'm totally on board with the idea that Marx can be used (not is, but can be used) as a purely economic theory. But you're not doing that, you immediately apply it to an ethical position, which makes it confusing as to why you're ignoring the ethical underpinnings of the original theory. I'm also confused why, if you think it's more productive to avoid ethics in talking about society/politics/economics, you keep talking about ethics whenever you talk about them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
I think trying to divorce ethics and morality from Marxism is removing the entire point of the philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Has anyone read Alain Badiou's ethics? I haven't yet but it's on my reading list: it sounds like it might address the frustrations I increasingly have been feeling towards ethical discourse in general as it relates to these problems. Evidently I'm having a lot of trouble expressing exactly what I mean here. I have bourgeois friends who come up to me (who they perceive as their radical social justice friend) and ask things like "This person offered to do unpaid work at my company and I turned them down. I did the ethical thing, right?" like they're seeking validation from me or something, reassurance that even although they're a business owner they're a good person and not part of the problem. What am I supposed to answer to that? It's like my literacy with radical thought makes me some kind of spiritual guru for them? I get really frustrated at this because political economic critique shouldn't give a gently caress about this sense of individual moral purity and has nothing to do with it. Discourse around morality really appears to be counter-productive more often than not in practice. Look at the way our culture thinks about racism for example. It's understood as this "sin" that bad people have and that everybody thinks they are themselves not guilty of. Racism is caused by racists who are evil and I am not a racist - what is this if not a complete obfuscation of the reality of structural racism that we all have a hand in perpetuating? Which is the more liberatory stance? "My landlord is amoral and a racist", or "My landlord reproduces racist aggression towards me despite having the best of intentions because of the role they have within the institution of private property". Does the working class need to believe stronger that freedom is good and exploitation is bad to become revolutionary? Or do they need a better understanding of the reality of the capitalist mode of production and how it operates in practice? Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Has anyone read Alain Badiou's ethics? I haven't yet but it's on my reading list: it sounds like it might address the frustrations I increasingly have been feeling towards ethical discourse in general as it relates to these problems. Evidently I'm having a lot of trouble expressing exactly what I mean here. Answer 'yes' or 'no' depending on whether you think it's ethical. I'm not sure what the difficulty of that question is. quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'our culture', which doesn't have a single view of racism. Many people are admitted and open racists. Etc. quote:Which is the more liberatory stance? "My landlord is amoral and a racist", or "My landlord reproduces racist aggression towards me despite having the best of intentions because of the role they have within the institution of private property". Neither. Either. Again a confusing question. The answer lies in what you do after coming to that stance, not in the stance itself. quote:Does the working class need to believe stronger that freedom is good and exploitation is bad to become revolutionary? Or do they need a better understanding of the reality of the capitalist mode of production and how it operates in practice? Here I think is your huge mistake: you take 'freedom' and 'exploitation' as though they're objective ethical values. They're not. Many of the working class believe they are not exploited. They believe exploitation is bad: they don't think they are exploited. Many others do understand they are exploited, that their surplus labour is parasitically siphoned off. If your goal is 'inspire the working class with revolutionary fervor' then you need to be able to engage with the actual views of the working class, which are non-monolithic. You've kind of wandered far afield and I really don't know what any of this has to do with your idea of looking at Marx solely as an economic theory with no ethical underpinning. Can you connect the dots?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Arri posted:I think trying to divorce ethics and morality from Marxism is removing the entire point of the philosophy. No it's exactly the point. The working class will revolt if it feels it has no other way to survive - of course it will feel that it is "morally right" to revolt and save their families, just as the ruling class will feel they are morally right to retain their power and property. Morality itself springs in part from social relaitons and material conditions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:No it's exactly the point. The working class will revolt if it feels it has no other way to survive - of course it will feel that it is "morally right" to revolt and save their families, just as the ruling class will feel they are morally right to retain their power and property. Morality itself springs in part from social relaitons and material conditions. It's really not exactly the point. It may be, to you, an important point, but Marx clearly, clearly thinks that human beings are suffering under alienation, that it is problematic in and of itself not just because it is destabilizing. Why are you ignoring what he writes about species-being, fulfillment of human nature, etc--and that capitalists are also alienated? Furthermore, Marx does not predict revolution when class reproduction becomes impossible--to 'save' their families--but instead from awareness of their conditions of alienation and exploitation. You never answered before when I asked you who these writers are who separate Marx the early philosopher from Marx the later social scientist. I'm very curious about this because I don't see any curtailing, at all, of Marx as a philosopher later in his career. Das Kapital is the only work I can think of that fits that, but there are plenty of other works in that time period that are highly philosophical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
You continue to conflate a judgment ("Workers of the world, unite!") with the analysis that leads to that judgment ("the workers of the world will unite").
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You continue to conflate a judgment ("Workers of the world, unite!") with the analysis that leads to that judgment. Really unclear who you mean by 'you'. If it's me: "Workers of the world, unite!" is a political decision about the best way to combat the problems that are revealed through Marx's analysis. One of the primary problems, really the primary problem, is the alienation of all members of society, the prevention of people from living fulfilled lives as human beings by the need to reproduce themselves and their class inside the capitalist system. That is an absolutely essential part of Marxist theory. Whether you're talking about Marx himself or the later-day Marxists like Adorno, this holds true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Really unclear who you mean by 'you'. If it's me: "Workers of the world, unite!" is a political decision about the best way to combat the problems that are revealed through Marx's analysis. A cynical person could read and agree with every single word in Capital and side with the bourgeoisie. Deciding the things revealed by Marx's analysis are problems worthy of solving - that is a political judgment that relies on, but is still separable from, his analysis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:A cynical person could read and agree with every single word in Capital and side with the bourgeoisie. Deciding the things revealed by Marx's analysis are problems worthy of solving - that is a political judgment that relies on, but is still separable from, his analysis. If you ignore large parts of Marx, you can separate the economic analysis and use that as a guidebook to being an exploitative capitalist. I already said that. That involves, however, ignoring all the things Marx says about alienation: if you believe Marx, then even the bourgeois are alienated and unfulfilled under capitalism. Karl Marx wrote a lot more things than Das Kapital, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
What difference does it make if the bourgeoisie is in fact not alienated and is quite fulfilled under capitalism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:What difference does it make if the bourgeoisie is in fact not alienated and is quite fulfilled under capitalism? It would mean a key part of Marxist theory is fundamentally wrong. To elaborate a little, it opens the door to all sorts of problems: Is life a zero sum game, then, where some will always be unfulfilled in any system? Why are they fulfilled--is hedonistic pleasure, or social status the actual 'fulfilling' aspect? Etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Here is an excellent resource for anyone interested in learning more about the kind of alienation the bourgeoisie is facing in our society: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FirstWorldProblems
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Also, please don't confuse "Marx's opinions on things" with "Marxism". The former is trivia, the latter is a framework for studying history and society through the lens of material conditions, technological progress and class struggle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Also, please don't confuse "Marx's opinions on things" with "Marxism". The former is trivia, the latter is a framework for studying history and society through the lens of material conditions, technological progress and class struggle. Yeah, cuz people behave like loving cogwheels based on their income level or something. Marxism is so loving dumb I can't fathom how anyone could take it as serious attempt to explain historical causalities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Also, please don't confuse "Marx's opinions on things" with "Marxism". The former is trivia, the latter is a framework for studying history and society through the lens of material conditions, technological progress and class struggle. Who are you saying is confusing this? So far nobody has presented Marx's opinions on things. Again, can you please explain who the people are who separate the 'early' philosophical Marx from the later, social scientist Marx, and how do they deal with the fact that Marx was super-philosophical in his late period, too? Bob le Moche posted:Here is an excellent resource for anyone interested in learning more about the kind of alienation the bourgeoisie is facing in our society: https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FirstWorldProblems How are those things related to alienation, in the Marxist sense? Kurnugia posted:Yeah, cuz people behave like loving cogwheels based on their income level or something. Marxism is so loving dumb I can't fathom how anyone could take it as serious attempt to explain historical causalities. Marx doesn't say people behave like cogwheels based on their income level. How much Marx have you read?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Yeah, cuz people behave like loving cogwheels based on their income level or something. Marxism is so loving dumb I can't fathom how anyone could take it as serious attempt to explain historical causalities. Yeah material interests have nothing to do with anything; poor people just coincidentally happen to believe that the less right-wing party is the most moral whereas rich people believe that the Republicans have the correct stances. It has nothing to do with what they believe is most beneficial for themselves and the people they care about. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Marx's argument is that nobody 'benefits' from capitalism, though; capitalists are just as alienated, and unfulfilled. great, now just go tell the capitalists that and we're off to Marx-land oh wait
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:great, now just go tell the capitalists that and we're off to Marx-land I did and they set the dogs on me and then garlanded my chains with flowers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Yeah material interests have nothing to do with anything; poor people just coincidentally happen to believe that the less right-wing party is the most moral whereas rich people believe that the Republicans have the correct stances. It has nothing to do with what they believe is most beneficial for themselves and the people they care about. you're right, poor white people in the USA are noted champions of the left and defenders of Marx's legacy, while rich urbanites are known for being stoogish conservatives
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Marx doesn't say people behave like cogwheels based on their income level. Marx was a insufferably boring writer, so none. I've read plenty of analyses regarding his theories of how the so-called oppressed workers would develop their class-consciousness, which underpins his conjecture that the dominant force of history is class struggle. Of course, the problem is that the whole division between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" is completely arbitrary. It has to be, because in reality there is no such thing as a social class that would define people's position or fate in society. People are what they think they are, and there's a lot more to that than being "proletarian" or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Marx was a insufferably boring writer, so none. Then you should probably shut the gently caress up about Marxism. Reading second-hand analysis isn't sufficient. Your critique is a standard one but there's easy answers to it under Marxist theory. Also, Marx is a pretty drat rocking writer, for a sociologist. Try Adorno if you really want to be bored. Or Durkheim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then you should probably shut the gently caress up about Marxism. Reading second-hand analysis isn't sufficient. Your critique is a standard one but there's easy answers to it under Marxist theory. You're telling a reactionary to try something new.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Marx is right in the exact same sense as Aristotle was "right" if you tossed out 90% of the details/crazy stuff like "the four humors" or "he thought the brain was used to regulate body temperature" and just focused on the fact that yeah, I guess he did theorize about the existence of atoms in like 350 BC. The problem with saying Marx is right is the exact same thing as those crazy alt-medicine people who post on their blogs about the four humors and then ignoring centuries of subsequent developments in their respective fields. Marx and Aristotle were both wrong, but that doesn't stop making them great men, because advancement of knowledge is based precisely on asking the right questions and coming up with the conclusion for someone else to prove wrong later!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It would mean a key part of Marxist theory is fundamentally wrong. Okay if you want to known why Marx was wrong here it is: "Alienation" is not a thing that actually exists and can be measured or quantified in any way. We have no way of knowing if socialism lessens alienation because we can't actually measure alientation. What you can measure is money, but according to Marx alienation is more important than lack of money, so a society in which material resources are 'fairly' distributed, however that is decided, does not actually satisfy Marx's complaints about alienation. Basically he wanted bloodly revolution for its own sake with no plan for society that would be demonstrably better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Then you should probably shut the gently caress up about Marxism. Well don't worry, the only people who care about Marxism are people insufferable enough to read his towerblock of das kapital. The rest of the world is going to continue ignoring you because you are incapable of making coherent arguments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's really not exactly the point. It may be, to you, an important point, but Marx clearly, clearly thinks that human beings are suffering under alienation, that it is problematic in and of itself not just because it is destabilizing. Why are you ignoring what he writes about species-being, fulfillment of human nature, etc--and that capitalists are also alienated? Furthermore, Marx does not predict revolution when class reproduction becomes impossible--to 'save' their families--but instead from awareness of their conditions of alienation and exploitation. That's still not necessarily morality though. Morality here is: "capitalism is wrong". That's a moral judgement. Observing the faults of a system even including "everyone is alienated" isn't a moral judgement, it's an observation. Analyzing or observing something where the outcome has moral implications ("the bridge is going to fall down") isn't necessarily a moral judgement itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Kurnugia posted:Marx was a insufferably boring writer, so none. I've read plenty of analyses regarding his theories of how the so-called oppressed workers would develop their class-consciousness, which underpins his conjecture that the dominant force of history is class struggle. Of course, the problem is that the whole division between "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" is completely arbitrary. It has to be, because in reality there is no such thing as a social class that would define people's position or fate in society. People are what they think they are, and there's a lot more to that than being "proletarian" or not. How do you pay for your livelyhood? Is it primarily through owning shares in a company, rent from property, or some such thing? Then you're part of the bourgeoisie. Is it by entering a contract with an employer who pays you for your work? Then you are a proletarian. Most people will easily recognize themselves as currently belonging to one of these two categories. The social class in which you were born is in fact the primary factor which determines your position in society and social mobility is pretty much a myth. Anyone who takes a serious look at the data knows this. Here is a recent article on the topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...erything-wrong/ You display your ignorance with a lot of pride.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:you're right, poor white people in the USA are noted champions of the left and defenders of Marx's legacy, while rich urbanites are known for being stoogish conservatives WOAH it's almost like race is also a structure that controls access to power and resources  Also, be sure completely ignore the actual chart showing that the existence of poorer, rural white voters with a desire to preserve white privilege don't meaningfully counteract the overall trend that poor people vote for what they think their interests are, just as rich people vote for what they think THEIR interests are, making your point utterly irrelevant OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:WOAH it's almost like race is also a power structure that controls access to power and resources Okay so when Marx said that the interests of the working class were in opposing capitalism he was actually wrong? Good to see we agree on something. hint: 'interests' is a fundamentally subjective concept that cannot be said to have an objective value. if people think drinking cyanide laced kool aid is in their interests you can't meaningfully say they're wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay so when Marx said that the interests of the working class were in opposing capitalism he was actually wrong? Good to see we agree on something. Hahaha what exactly do you think you're trying to argue now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Hahaha what exactly do you think you're trying to argue now? I'm arguing that Marxism is a dumb bad ideology that purports to be in the objective interests of the working class when such a thing doesn't actually exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:08
|
|