|
the 19th century indian famines among farmers who were driven into debt only payable with cotton and other cash crops and so could neither afford to grow nor buy food, where the famine was more intense the closer you got to railroads and infrastructure and where iirc the previous government's granaries had been appropriated and sold for profit, are pretty straightforward cases of capitalists and a government protecting their interests intentionally creating food insecurity and choosing not to prevent resultant famine i think they were exporting more than 1% of the total harvest in 1840's ireland too in both cases the state both introduces food insecurity where none previously existed then exerts physical and legal force to perpetuate food insecurity in the face of famine seems fair to ascribe such a famine to capitalist government, doesn't actually have much to do with this thread but gently caress it. buttfuck it
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
i read part of edward bellamy's Looking Backward: 2000-1887 and it was kinda interesting, pretty naive though i think i read through the here's how the socialist society of the future happened and let us futuresplain to your gilded age rear end how it came to be part and after that it seemed like it was becoming a victorian romance novel which seemed boring
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
are you that baby who rolled down the steps edit to be clear the baby was cool im cool with the baby oystertoadfish fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Feb 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
is there anything interesting written about the various ideologies' response to scientific management and taylorism in the early twentieth century? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor in addition to what's written there (and i can see that taylorism didn't fit seamlessly into the Actual Socialist USSR, but i'd be interested in yalls perspectives) i read once that mussolini found out that taylor's widow was attending some conference in italy and chased her down to get her to autograph his copy of the principles of scientific management. the implication in what i've read was that all the politically powerful ideologies of the early twentieth century saw value in taylor's work. presumably the anarchists would have disagreed another random thing in this vein (slightly) that i ran into once was that the (not actually) nobel prize for economics (it's a prize 'in memory of' nobel piggybacking on his more famous prizes iirc, loving economists) was given jointly in 1975 to an american and a soviet for the computing era version of taylorization, optimization http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1975/press.html it's interesting to me how in that bygone era it was seen as useful by the economics nobel prize people to recognize the phenomenon of algorithmic allocation of economic resources by giving it jointly to a capitalist and a socialist practitioner
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
once i answered a quiz bowl question where the answer was, you know, that group, by saying 'solidarnosc' and they ruled me wrong and said the answer was 'solidarity' if i had had a little more experience i would have screamed the injustice pains me to this day
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
i spergposted about empire of cotton earlier itt i really liked that book its not marxist but the concept of 'war capitalism' it espouses is certainly not, like friedmanesque. thomas or milton edit vv oh y0 im a lapsed catholic too. i live literally 650 ft from a church so i still go sometimes. dont know much about liberation theology tho. my favorite catholic-related work of literature is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_and_the_Glory (spoilers i guess) i think its a really good novel oystertoadfish fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
i had brought up taylorization (or taylorism) in communism earlier and nobody had anything to say, which is fair enough, but i found this interesting article talking about how the issue was debated within the framework of marxist-leninism or however yall ism/ist that hyphenation http://monoskop.org/images/f/f2/Sochor_Zenovia_A_1981_Soviet_Taylorism_Revisited.pdf i wish i could read this article too, the abstract seems to claim that lenin's dalliances with taylorization were just rhetoric http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03068290410518265?journalCode=ijse i think i also brought up the 1975 prize in economics in memory of alfred nobel (not a nobel prize) which was for linear programming (optimization) and went jointly to an american and a soviet practitioner http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1975/presentation-speech.html kind of an interesting read to get a sense of how some people thought optimization sort of transcended the capitalist/socialist conflict. another example is the highlight of the movie Network, this speech, which came out the year after that 'nobel prize' and which i wouldnt be surprised to hear was influenced by that prize or by the same things the prize was influenced by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKkRDMil0bw apparently zamyatin's We deals with the issue of taylorism, i guess i should read that poo poo sometime i've heard about it for years oystertoadfish fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Protip - We is bad. It doesn't really deal with that kind of stuff in the same way 1984 does. It's just straight up not as good. The issue with taylorism is that it's a management style, not a political-economic order, and it's kind of a recurrent one at that. The perpetual problem is always incentives and confirmation bias, the latter being more important. You can't make a judgement of 'fitting' a person into a position without introducing personal bias, or disincentivizing them from giving a poo poo about a position without possibility of advancement. Yet people have to keep learning this same lesson over and over again. thanks for the we-tip im not trying to advocate for taylorism or anything (if that's even a thing people do - i'm sure somebody does it somewhere, this is the internet after all), im more interested in the historical relationship between this explicitly capitalist industrial management theory and the ideologies of liberalism, socialism and fascism. the context that interests me is that this particular industrial management theory was popular at the historical moment when those ideologies were all making arguments for their viability as political-economic systems for an industrialized society
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
i suppose so. it seems from that article i linked as if early soviet thinkers identified it with capitalism, but i realize the first publicly available article that comes up on google isn't the synthesis of all valuable opinions. really i don't know much about it, which i guess is why i mentioned it. so thanks for saying things about it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
i think the german/irish/italian/etc-identifying americans arrived in the 19th century, while the american-identifying area was settled by southerners, the descendents of british/irish who mostly arrived in the 18th century, and didn't see much impact from the big ellis island-style migration. the extra century-plus in-country results in lower relevance for the origin-based identity edit: this table offers some support for the claim that the south was characterized by low immigration between 1850 and recent decades https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab14.html there might be something about a 'dixie' culture subsuming origin-based identity, in which case you'd have a tie to slavery and racism, since it's possible that northern 18th-century immigrants held onto their identities more strongly than southern 18th-century immigrants, but it's not strictly necessary to explain the data. we'd need to factor out post-1860 or so immigrants to get a good comparison and that would be hard to do oystertoadfish fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
here's the data i linked in my edit - now in infographic format! it's not the % of each region's population that is foreign, it's the % of the national foreign-born population that resides in each region. that's why north + south together comes out to a lot less than 100% by the end of the graph anyway, i think this is the difference that engenders the 'american' self-designation in the south edit: the green line probably relates to the decline of the rust belt. not many immigrants are moving to like akron or detroit or flint any more i guess
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 17:24
|
|